the long lowland rivers of south east queensland and north...

The Long lowland rivers of SE Qld and NE NSW ecological community Published in April 2014

The Long Lowland Rivers of South East Queensland and North East New South Wales Ecological Community

1. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) was established under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and has obligations to present advice to the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) in relation to the listing and conservation of threatened ecological communities, including under sections 189, 194N and 266B of the EPBC Act.

2. The Committee provided the attached listing and conservation advice on the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community to the Minister in November 2013.

3. The Committee advised that the ecological community does not currently meet the criteria for listing as threatened under any category.

4. In February 2014 the Minister decided not to list the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales as a threatened ecological community under the EPBC Act.

5. This means that the ecological community is not eligible for protection as a matter of national environmental significance under the EPBC Act and this document is not an approved conservation advice under section 266B of the EPBC Act.

6. Although the ecological community does not currently meet the listing criteria, concerns remain, about threats to the ecological community’s survival over the longer term; particularly if adequate management measures are not undertaken, or the impetus for recovery actions and environmental protection is lost.

7. The ecological community provides broader habitat for many component species. Some of these are listed as threatened, either nationally or by state jurisdictions, hence are protected in their own right. The nature of protection afforded to any threatened species should take into account the habitat values provided by the river systems inhabited by the species.

8. Some of the key ecological processes, habitat values and other considerations regarding the conservation of the seven long lowland river systems that make up the ecological community are covered in the conservation advice.

9. The decision not to list the ecological community as nationally threatened should not detract from future efforts to conserve the biodiversity, ecological processes and ecosystem services inherent in the seven long lowland river systems. Some priority conservation actions to abate threats and stop the ecological community from being threatened are needed in the longer term and are outlined in Section 5 of this advice. Importantly, existing measures must be maintained to conserve the ecological community and restore species composition, integrity and functionality.

10. The attached document should be cited as:

Threatened Species Scientific Committee (2014). The Threatened Species Scientific Committee’s listing and conservation advice to the Minister for the Environment for the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community. Department of Environment, Canberra.

The Long lowland rivers of SE Qld and NE NSW ecological community Published in April 2014

The Threatened Species Scientific Committee’s Listing and Conservation Advice to the Minister for the Environment for the Long Lowland Rivers of South East Queensland

and North East New South Wales Ecological Community begins on the next page

Listing and Conservation Advice - Long lowland rivers of SE Qld and NE NSW Provided in November 2013

Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (s266B)

Listing and Conservation advice for Long Lowland Rivers of South East Queensland and North East New South Wales

1. The Threatened Species Scientific Committee (the Committee) was established under the EPBC Act and has obligations to present advice to the Minister for the Environment (the Minister) in relation to the listing and conservation of threatened ecological communities, including under sections 189, 194N and 266B of the EPBC Act.

2. The Committee provided its advice on the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales aquatic ecological community to the Minister in 2013.

3. The ecological community does not meet the criteria for listing as threatened under any category.

4. The nomination and a draft description of this ecological community were made available for expert and public comment for a minimum of 30 business days. The Committee had regard to all public and expert comment that was relevant to the consideration of the ecological community.

5. This listing and conservation advice has been developed based on the best available information at the time it was considered; this includes scientific literature, advice from consultations, and existing plans, records or management prescriptions for this ecological community.

Listing and Conservation Advice - Long lowland rivers of SE Qld and NE NSW Provided in November 2013 Page 2 of 103

Table of Contents

1. Description ............................................................................................................................5

1.1 Name of the ecological community ................................................................................5

1.2 Location and physical environment ................................................................................5

Figure 1: Map showing the relative position of the Macleay/MacPherson Overlap. ......6

Figure 2: Position in the landscape ..................................................................................8

Figure 3: Generalised geological cross-section of a flood plain .....................................9

Figure 4: Major components of riffle/pool/ bar habitats ...............................................10

Table 1: Rainfall in south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ...............11

1.3 Vegetation .....................................................................................................................12

Aquatic vegetation ...........................................................................................................12

Riparian vegetation .........................................................................................................12

1.4 Fauna .............................................................................................................................13

1.5 Key diagnostic characteristics .......................................................................................15

Exclusions .......................................................................................................................16

Notes on key diagnostic characteristics ..........................................................................17

1.6 Surrounding environment and landscape context .........................................................18

Area critical to the survival of the aquatic ecological community ..................................18

Buffer zones and other considerations ............................................................................18

2. Summary of threats .............................................................................................................20

3. National context and other existing protection ...................................................................21

4. Summary of eligibility for listing against the EPBC Act criteria. ......................................22

5. Priority Conservation Actions .............................................................................................24

5.1 Research priorities and priority recovery and threat abatement actions .......................24

5.2 Existing plans/management prescriptions .....................................................................25

5.3 Limitations and constraints to biodiversity protection ..................................................27

5.4 Recovery plan ................................................................................................................28

5.5 Implications of not listing this ecological community ..................................................29

6. Appendices ..........................................................................................................................29

Appendix A: Distribution map and description of catchments. ..........................................29

Figure A1: Distribution map of the ecological community ............................................29

Description of catchments ...................................................................................................31

Table A1: River systems in which the ecological community occurs .............................31

Appendix B: Species lists ....................................................................................................34

Table B1: Vascular plants that are characteristic of the ecological community ...........34

Table B2: Vertebrate fauna ............................................................................................37

Table B3: Invertebrates ..................................................................................................42


Table B4: Weed species ..................................................................................................45

Appendix C: Detailed description of biology and ecological processes .............................47

Vegetation dynamics .......................................................................................................47

Table C1: Identified priority flora species ......................................................................48

Interaction with riparian vegetation ................................................................................49

Faunal roles and interactions ...........................................................................................49

Figure C1: Reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey ..........................................................50

Appendix D: Detailed description of national context ........................................................52

National and state listed threatened species ....................................................................52

Table D1: State listed threatened aquatic flora species .................................................52

Table D2: Listed threatened fauna species .....................................................................53

Threatened ecological communities recognised under state jurisdiction ........................54

Other state vegetation protection .....................................................................................54

Water law ........................................................................................................................55

EPBC key threatening processes .....................................................................................55

Appendix E: Detailed description of threats .......................................................................56

Regulation, infrastructure and modification of flow .......................................................56

Physical barriers ..............................................................................................................57

Disconnection from the floodplain ..................................................................................59

Abstraction of water ........................................................................................................60

Geomorphic alteration .....................................................................................................60

Introduced / problem species ...........................................................................................62

Other threats ....................................................................................................................65

Potential threats ...............................................................................................................66

Appendix F: Detailed assessment of eligibility for listing against the EPBC Act criteria..67

Criterion 1 - Decline in geographic distribution .............................................................68

Table F1: Estimated length and area of the ecological community ...............................68

Table F1a: Percentage losses of the nominated ecological community .........................70

Criterion 2 -Small geographic distribution coupled with demonstrable threat ...............72

Criterion 3 - Loss or decline of functionally important species ......................................74

Criterion 4 - Reduction in community integrity ..............................................................77

Table F2. Condition assessment .....................................................................................79

Table F3: Ecosystem health ratings ...............................................................................80

Criterion 5 - Rate of continuing detrimental change .......................................................83

Criterion 6 - Quantitative analysis showing probability of extinction ............................83

Appendix G: Glossary .........................................................................................................84


7. Bibliography ........................................................................................................................88


1. Description

1.1 Name of the ecological community

The ecological community was nominated as the ‘Riffle/Pool/Sandbank Community of the Mary River (Queensland) floodplain’. However, this was considered unrepresentative of the full national extent of the ecological community. Consequently, an investigation into a broader national extent was undertaken; specifically in relation to all east coast, subtropical and temperate rivers flowing into the Pacific Ocean. Subsequently, the item ‘Riffle Pool Bar River Community of the South Eastern Queensland Bioregion’ was placed on the 2009 Finalised Priority Assessment List (FPAL), for assessment as a potentially threatened ecological community under the Environmental Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (the EPBC Act).

Under the EPBC Act an ecological community is defined as ‘the extent in nature in the Australian jurisdiction of an assemblage of native species that inhabits a particular area in nature’. Further considerations of the definition of this aquatic ecological community, including an expert workshop, resulted in a focus on the assemblage of native species in perennially flowing freshwater sections of long subtropical, lowland river systems of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales. The following name reflects the national extent, distribution, and biogeography of the ecological community.

The proposed name of the aquatic ecological community is the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community.

1.2 Location and physical environment

The Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community (also referred to as the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community, the ecological community or, the aquatic ecological community ) occurs in long, lowland subtropical river systems along the eastern coastal plain of continental Australia.

The aquatic ecological community occurs in both south east Queensland and north east New South Wales. It occurs in the complex river systems of a number of large catchments, from the Kolan River catchment (which enters the Pacific Ocean just north of Bundaberg), to the Clarence River catchment (north and west of Coffs Harbour).

The ecological community occurs predominantly within the river systems of the nationally defined South East Queensland (SEQ) IBRA*1

1 An asterisk* indicates that a word or abbreviation is explained in the glossary for this report. For the sake of clarity, some technical terms are explained in a numbered footnote.

Bioregion. This bioregion extends south into north east New South Wales towards Coffs Harbour and encompasses the Richmond River catchment and a significant part of the Clarence River catchment. Other lowland areas of the Clarence River catchment, in which the ecological community also occurs, are in the north east corner of the New South Wales North Coast (NNC) IBRA Bioregion.

IBRA: The ‘Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia’ categorises the Australian continent into 80 regions of similar geology, landform, vegetation, fauna and climate. IBRA version 7 was used when defining this ecological community.


Within Queensland, the ecological community occurs in the Queensland South East Freshwater Biogeographic Province (SE FBP) which is coincident with much of the Queensland state (as opposed to IBRA) bioregion called the South East Queensland Bioregion.

The ecological community mostly occurs within the Macleay/MacPherson Overlap (the Overlap), a biogeographic transition zone, between the temperate, and tropical zones inland of the eastern Australian coast. Figure 1 shows the relative position of the Overlap. It is an area of exceptionally high biodiversity with a strong endemic component.

As well as having many regionally endemic species, the Overlap contains the southern-most limit of many tropical species and the northern-most limit of many temperate species. For example, the Overlap contains the southern limit of the Krefftian fluvifaunula2

Figure 1: Map showing the relative position of the Macleay/MacPherson Overlap. Source: Burbidge (1960).

and the northern limit of the Lessonian fluvifaunula, proposed by Iredale and Whitley (1938).

2 Fluvifaunula: The animals (such as fish, crustacean, molluscs and other aquatic fauna species) which together are found in a particular river, or a series of rivers within a defined region (or province). The Krefftian fluvifaunula province extends along the east coast of southern Queensland. The Lessonian fluvifaunula occurs in most of the rivers of eastern New South Wales, Victoria and northern Tasmania.


The aquatic ecological community occurs in the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority (CMA) region in New South Wales and the Burnett Mary and South East Queensland Natural Resource Management (NRM) regions in Queensland.

A more detailed location map for the ecological community is in Figure A1 in Appendix A.

The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community is the unique combination and abundance of aquatic native plant and animal species that occur within the perennial*, flowing, lowland freshwater reaches of the following seven long river systems: • Kolan River • Burnett River • Mary River • Brisbane River • Logan River • Richmond River • Clarence River

A description of these seven river catchments is included in Appendix A.

The northern boundary of the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community is the Kolan River system in south east Queensland. North of this, the river systems such as the Fitzroy River have a more tropical biota. The southern boundary is the Clarence River system in New South Wales. Rivers to the south of the ecological community have a more temperate assemblage of species.

The western boundary of many of the catchments in which the ecological community occurs is the eastern side of the Great Dividing Range, referred to as the Great Escarpment; although in some places, such as immediately north of Brisbane, the escarpment is obscure or absent (Hodgkinson, 2007).

The upstream limit of the ecological community is the upstream limit of the main lowland alluvial floodplain for each of the river catchments. Across the extent of the ecological community the upstream limit is typically in the range of 100–250 m above sea level (asl).

The downstream limit of the ecological community is the upstream limit of the river’s estuary, or where the river encounters a tidal weir, or an impoundment behind an estuary barrage. In the absence of man-made structures, the upstream limit of mangrove growth or of saltmarshes is a good indicator of the downstream limit of the ecological community.

Whilst the aquatic ecological community occurs within and below the river channel and in local groundwater lateral to the channel, it is also dependent on adjacent native riparian vegetation and natural wetlands on the broader floodplain. The amount of local adjacent groundwater may be several times the amount of surface water in a river on large alluvial flood plains and can extend several kilometres to either side of the river.


Gradient The aquatic ecological community occurs in the lower gradient, meandering, depositional area of the river. Figure 2 illustrates the ecological community’s occurrence in the landscape. The ecological community is shown as being in the ‘mid reaches’ of the illustration.

Figure 2: Position in the landscape of the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community (i.e. the area shown in the dashed red rectangle). Source: Adapted from DEWHA (2009).

Substrate

Most of the large river systems in which the ecological community occurs begin in the Great Dividing Range. Whilst a number of the rivers initially flow north to south, or south to north, and even westwards, they all ultimately flow to the east coast and the Pacific Ocean. The shape of the rivers’ catchments and of the rivers themselves, as well as the type of sediment transported and deposited are largely dependent on their underlying geology.

Figure 3 shows a generalised geological cross-section of part of a floodplain landscape of the ecological community. Along the length of the ecological community, erosion, transport, and deposition of sediments create alternating shallow and deep sections of river, termed ‘riffles’ and ‘pools’ respectively, and areas of emergent sediment called ‘bars’. Riffles, pools and bars are of significant functional and ecological importance, and are typically areas of high biodiversity.


The substrate in these lowland reaches is composed of alluvial deposits (e.g. quaternary* alluvium). The river channel is often deeply incised into the floodplain alluvium with unconsolidated banks stabilised by riparian vegetation. Some bedrock outcrops may be present but the channel is not bedrock-dominated.

Figure 3: Generalised geological cross-section of flood plain geological formations in South East Queensland. Source: Adapted from NSW DNR (1997).

The typical substrates of the ecological community are cobble, gravel and sand, with proportions varying depending on catchment geology and local hydraulic conditions. River bed forms are characterised by short riffles (a few metres to tens of metres in length) and long pools (hundreds of metres to 1-2 km long, sometimes longer). Figure 4 shows how all three key elements of the riffle/pool/bar association may occur together. These elements are:

• Riffle – Gravel/cobble substrate (may be armoured*), shallow water (typically up to ~ 30 cm average depth under normal conditions); faster flowing

• Pool – More variable substrate (can include sand, gravel, cobble, silt, clay, organic detritus), still water, deeper than riffle (can be many metres deep)

• Bar – Substrate a mix of sand, gravel, cobble (varies between and along rivers); situated within high flow channel, not inundated at low flow but subject to inundation by high flow. Does not typically support permanent riparian vegetation but may have ruderals3

and saplings. Bars are dependent on reworking by the river to maintain bare sediment and may be reconfigured by flood events. Occasionally permanent vegetation (such as Casuarina spp. / Allocasuarina spp. (swamp oak)) is established on bars, which stabilises the bar and can alter the river course.

3 Ruderals: Plant species that colonise disturbed land.


Figure 4: Major components of riffle/pool/ bar habitats (the blue arrow indicates surface water flow; the red dashed arrows indicate groundwater and hyporheic flow) Source: DEWHA (2009).

Climate

The general trend in the region, from west to east, is from a sub-humid climate on the inland slopes, near the upstream limits of the ecological community; to a subtropical climate with hot summers on the coast, near the downstream limits of the ecological community.

Rainfall is seasonal, with the most rain occurring in summer. Seasonal rainfall leads to periods of high runoff and regular spates4

Temperature

or occasional floods, interspersed with periods of low runoff and drought conditions that severely limit water resources. Regional topography results in greater rainfall in some catchments of north east New South Wales than in the catchments of south east Queensland.

Temperature varies along a north/east to south/west gradient and is warmer near the coast where seasonality is less pronounced. December and January are typically the hottest months and July usually the coolest month, when the mean daily temperature may drop below 10°C (JCQRFASC, 1999). River water temperature generally reflects that of air temperature, with the exception of deeper water released from impoundments.

4 Spates: Short, high flow events in rivers and streams that are usually associated with periods of heavy

rainfall.


Rainfall Rainfall is summer dominated (the wet season is January – April) but variability is high where the aquatic ecological community occurs and, in contrast to most of the east of the country, rainfall persistence is weak even on monthly timescales (Lough, 1991; Simmonds and Hope, 1997). Regional topography typically results in greater rainfall in north east New South Wales than in south east Queensland. Table 1 shows rainfall figures for the regions in which the ecological community occurs.

Table 1: Rainfall in south east Queensland and north east New South Wales. Source: hBaur (1962), ANRA (2002), fNSW OEH (2011).

Region Mean Annual

Rainfall (mm/Yr)

Regional Range (mm/Yr)

South east Qld 917 637 – 3081

North east NSW 1397h 607 – 2912f

Hydrology

Flow is considered the 'master' variable that sustains all natural physical and biological processes in the ecological community. In combination with substrate, it defines the river geomorphology and sediment regime which determines the type, amount and accessibility of habitat for riverine plants and animals. Flow drives food webs, through the transportation of carbon and other nutrients and has a major influence on animal and plant behaviour and life histories (Humphreys et al., 2008). It determines wetting and drying cycles and overbank flows on the floodplain.

The summer dominated rainfall pattern varies extremely in the catchments of the ecological community. Rainfall is often intense, causing flow spates in rivers which can result in destructive flooding. Major spates can temporarily raise the flow of rivers such as the Clarence to levels equivalent to some of the largest rivers in the world. In south east Queensland, on average 89% of river flow is related to flood flow from rainfall events (Qld DERM, 2011).

Spates significantly influence stream geomorphology at various scales and are important determinants of habitat availability during the remainder of the hydrological cycle. In the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community spates are less of a disturbance because bed slopes are lower, water depths are generally greater and water velocity and force are not as extreme as in upland areas. Spates also tend to last longer in lowland areas and are often termed floods. They enable floodplain inundation and the filling of temporary wetlands.


Periods with low flow or no flow are part of the normal flow regime of the ecological community. However, the duration and timing of no flow events is highly unpredictable because of unpredictable rainfall patterns. Low flow leads to the constriction of available habitat in the ecological community and disruption of connectivity. Low flows normally occur in the November-December period, following the relatively dry spring months. Groundwater, emerging at or near the surface, typically from shallow unconfined aquifers, often maintains the base flow of the ecological community during dry periods. Within river systems, the groundwater component / base flow varies between different local aquifer systems.

Groundwater The ecological community also occurs within local adjacent groundwater, below and lateral to the channel. Water passes back and forth between the river, the groundwater below the river bed, and alluvial aquifers alongside the river. The water flows around microbial communities/biofilms, meiofauna* and macroinvertebrates* that reside in the saturated sediments and are part of the aquatic ecological community.

The amount of water in the groundwater zones associated with the ecological community may be several times the amount of surface water in the river on large alluvial flood plains (and can extend several kilometres to either side of the river).

1.3 Vegetation

Aquatic vegetation

Aquatic plant (macrophyte) species that may dominate riffle and pool habitats of the ecological community include Azolla pinnata (azolla), Ceratophyllum demersum (hornwort), Myriophyllum verrucosum (red water milfoil), Nymphoides indica (water snowflake), Potamogeton crispus (curly pondweed), Potamogeton perfoliatus (clasped pondweed) and Vallisneria nana (ribbon weed) (DEWHA, 2009). Hydrilla verticillata (water thyme) can also dominate pool habitats, although this may be replaced by the exotic species dense waterweed (Egeria densa).

Other aquatic macrophytes that may be found in the ecological community include: Aponogeton elongatus (Queensland lace), Eleocharis sphacelata (kaya), Lemna spp such as Lemna triscula (duckweed), Marsilea mutica (nardoo), Najas tenuifolia (water nymph), Potamogeton ochreatus (blunt pondweed), and Triglochin procera (water ribbon).

Macrophytes found in the bar habitat include Persicaria decipiens (slender knotweed), Juncus usitatus (common rush), and Cyperus eragrostis (umbrella sedge). All these species are able to survive temporary inundation. Riparian vegetation such as Casuarina spp. and Allocasuarina spp. (she-oaks or swamp-oaks) can become established on bars (and are therefore included in the ecological community), and if they are not removed by large floods, can grow 30–40 m tall, have a stabilising influence on the bar, and eventually alter the river course (DEWHA, 2009).

Riparian vegetation

Although the riparian vegetation interacts with the ecological community and is essential to maintaining ecological function of the ecological community, it is only included as part of the listed Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community where it occurs on bars.

Common riparian species adjacent to the ecological community include Callistemon viminalis (weeping bottlebrush), Casuarina cunninghamiana (river she-oak), Corymbia intermedia (pink


bloodwood), Eucalyptus grandis (flooded gum), Eucalyptus siderophloia (ironbark), Eucalyptus tereticornis (forest red gum, blue gum) and Melaleuca bracteata (black tea tree). Other species that occur frequently within riparian zones of the ecological community include Aphananthe philippinensis (native elm), Castanospermum australe (blackbean), Crytopcarya triplinervis (three-veined laurel), Ficus coronata (sandpaper fig), Streblus brunonianus (whalebone tree), Syzygium floribundum (weeping lillypilly) and Tristaniopsis laurina (water gum).

A more extensive list of plant species that may occur in the ecological community is in Appendix B (Table B1).

1.4 Fauna

The various freshwater aquatic niches (e.g. pools, riffles) within the ecological community provide habitat for numerous fish species; particularly migratory and euryhaline5

In general within the ecological community, fish species richness increases with distance downstream, as tributaries merge and habitat increases. Dominant fish species display an increase in trophic diversity with increasing distance downstream, suggesting increasing diversity of available food types (Gehrke, 1997). An additional feature of the pattern of fish species diversity is due to the ecological community’s occurrence at a tropical / temperate overlap. Fish species found in northern, tropical Australia (e.g. Lates calcarifer (barramundi), Lutjanus argentimaculatus (mangrove jack), Porochilus rendahli (Rendahl’s catfish), Kuhlia rupestris (jungle perch), Amniataba percoides (barred grunter)] and species from southern temperate waters [e.g. Macquaria novemaculeata (Australian bass), Retropinna semoni (Australian smelt), Anguilla australis (short-finned eel), Gobiomorphus australis (striped gudgeon)) overlap in range. The resulting diversity of freshwater fishes in the region is considered high by Australian standards (Unmack, 2001), with more than 50 species recorded historically.

species. These include Anguilla reinhardtii (longfinned/marbled eel), Carcharhinus leucas (river shark), Craterocephalus marjoriae (Marjorie’s hardyhead), Galaxias maculatus (common galaxias), Gobiomorphus australis (striped gudgeon), Lates calcarifer (barramundi), Mugil cephalus (striped mullet), Retropinna semoni (Australian smelt) and Tandanus tandanus (eel-tailed catfish).

The pattern of fish diversity is also likely influenced by the aquatic invertebrate fauna of the ecological community. Invertebrates are a significant and diverse component of the ecological community with specific assemblages occurring in various habitats, for example: channels; riffles; bars and pools. Characteristic invertebrate taxa are listed in Appendix B (Table B3) and include a diverse array of insects such as Coleoptera (beetles), Ephemeroptera (mayflies), Neuroptera (lacewings), Odonata – Anisoptera (dragonflies) and Trichoptera (caddisflies); Crustacea such as Atyidae (shrimps), Parastacidae (yabbies, crayfish) and Palaemonidae (prawns); and Molluscs such as Ancylidae (freshwater limpets), Corbiculidae (orb-shell mussels, basket clams) and Viviparidae (river snails).

5 Euryhaline: Able to tolerate a wide range of salinity.


Parts of the ecological community also provide habitat for the nationally listed endangered fish Maccullochella ikei (eastern freshwater cod, Clarence River cod) and Maccullochella mariensis (Mary River cod) and nationally listed vulnerable Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian lungfish). These three fish species are endemic to the ecological community.

The southern limit of the ecological community also corresponds with the southern limit of occurrence (current or historic) of freshwater cod (Maccullochella spp.) in east coast Australia. Maccullochella ikei (eastern freshwater cod, Clarence River cod) occurs, or has occurred historically, in the Clarence, Richmond and Logan-Albert river systems; M. mariensis (Mary River cod) is in the Mary and Brisbane river systems.

The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community supports a variety of other vertebrate and micro and macro invertebrate fauna. These include small ground dwelling mammals (e.g. native rats) and reptiles, bats and birds that forage in the ecological community, and aquatic and water associated fauna species (e.g. platypus, lizards and snakes, frogs and turtles) that are predominantly reliant on the ecological community for foraging habitat. A more extensive list of animal species that may occur in the ecological community is in Appendix B (Table B2). A list of state and nationally threatened fauna species is in Appendix D (Table D1).

Many insectivorous bats forage in forest and woodland gaps and edges, including flyways along streams of the ecological community. These include Chalinolobus nigrogriseus (hoary wattled bat), which is listed as vulnerable in NSW. The aquatic-foraging specialist Myotis macropus (large-footed myotis) also has a strong association with watercourses such as those in the ecological community. Amphibious mammal species such as Ornithorhynchus anatinus (platypus) and Hydromys chrysogaster (water rat) occur in parts of the ecological community.

Many birds of prey hunt over the aquatic ecological community, including Falco cenchroides (Nankeen kestrel), Falco peregrinus (peregrine falcon), Haliaeetus leucogaster (white-bellied sea-eagle), Haliastur sphenurus (whistling kite), Pandion cristatus (eastern osprey), and Pandion haliaetus (osprey). Water birds that occur in the ecological community include Anseranas semipalmata (magpie goose), Grus rubicunda (brolga), Oxyura australis (blue-billed duck), and Stictonetta naevosa (freckled duck) (all listed as vulnerable in NSW).

Characteristic reptile species of the ecological community include Chelodina longicollis (eastern long-necked turtle), Macrochelodina expansa (broad-shelled river turtle), Myuchelys latisternum (saw-shelled turtle), Eulamprus quoyii (eastern water skink), and Physignathus lesueurii lesueurii (eastern water dragon); water associated snakes, such as Pseudechis porphyriacus (red bellied black snake) are also common. Other reptile species endemic to parts of the ecological community include Elseya albagula (Burnett River snapping turtle) and Elusor macrurus (Mary River turtle) (listed as Endangered in Queensland and nationally). Frog species that may occur in the ecological community include: Adelotus brevis (tusked frog), Limnodynastes dumerilii (eastern banjo frog / grey bellied pobblebonk), Litoria chloris (orange eyed tree frog), Litoria verreauxii (whistling treefrog), Litoria wilcoxii (stony creek frog), Mixophyes iterate (giant barred-frog) and Mixophyes fasciolatus (great barred frog).


1.5 Key diagnostic characteristics

The following key diagnostic characteristics for the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community summarise the main hydrogeophysical features from the description of the ecological community. They assist with determining whether the ecological community is likely to be present at a particular time and place.

The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community is the assemblage of native species that occur in the perennially flowing, lowland freshwater reaches of rivers in seven named long subtropical river systems. It has the following key diagnostic characteristics:

• It occurs in river catchments (entirely or partly) in the nationally defined ‘South Eastern Queensland’ IBRA1(6

• It occurs in subtropical rivers2 that are part of large long river systems east of the Great Dividing Range.

) Bioregion in north east New South Wales and south east Queensland.

• The ecological community occurs in non-Wallum3 river systems.

• It occurs within one of the following seven large river catchments: the Kolan, Burnett, Mary, Brisbane or Logan/Albert river systems in south east Queensland; or, the Richmond or Clarence river systems in north east New South Wales.

• Within these large long river systems, the aquatic ecological community occurs in lowland freshwater reaches of the river system (as opposed to upland, or estuarine reaches2).

• As well as occurring in surface water, the ecological community occurs within the groundwater flowing through the river bed.

• It occurs within the perennially4 flowing parts of the river systems (as opposed to ephemeral or intermittent rivers); i.e. for ease of identification: Rivers and reaches that currently or historically contained water throughout years of normal rainfall.

• Where reaches contain flora they are typically species in Appendix B (Table B1).

• Where reaches contain fauna they are typically species in Appendix B (tables B2 & B3).

• The ecological community is typically associated with rivers containing extensive lowland riffle/pool/bar5 sequences.

In addition, connectivity is a critical underpinning feature for the functionality of the aquatic ecological community.

6 Numbers here (e.g. 1 – 5; and 6 – 10 overleaf) refer to the accompanying notes on key diagnostic characteristics on the next two pages


Extensive areas of the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community have been disturbed in the past by clearing floodplain vegetation, overfishing, sand and gravel extraction and regulation of, or changes in, water flow. For nationally listed ecological communities, legal protection can be focussed on areas that are functional, relatively natural and in relatively good condition. Protecting these areas is vital for the long term persistence of the ecological community and its ecological functions. Numeric condition thresholds have not been applied to this ecological community and there is a significant potential to recover or rehabilitate the ecological community, even if it is heavily degraded. However there are exclusions, which are listed below to aid with identification of areas of the ecological community.

Exclusions

The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community does not occur within: • headwater reaches and upland river reaches

• estuaries6 (the estuarine component of the river)

• significant man-made impoundment7 areas (such as reservoirs) and canalised reaches8

• rivers and streams that are typically non-perennial4 (i.e. intermittent or ephemeral)

• lakes9 and billabongs10 that are not typically part of the surface river/stream channel (e.g. only connected during flooding)

• rivers that are not part of the following seven large river catchments: the Kolan, Burnett, Mary, Brisbane and Logan/Albert river systems in south east Queensland; and, the Richmond and Clarence river systems in north east New South Wales; for example...

o Wallum3 river systems o shorter, steeper coastal rivers with smaller catchments; these do not have such

extensive floodplain sequences and run more directly eastwards into the sea (many of these are Wallum river systems)

o river systems entirely outside the South Eastern Queensland (SEQ) IBRA1 Bioregion and/or that are more tropical (such as the Fitzroy River), or more temperate (such as the Macleay).

These excluded aquatic areas provide different habitat for some species of the ecological community. Within the long river systems in which the ecological community occurs, excluded areas may be considered as part of a buffer zone or zone of influence for conservation and management (see the next section, on Surrounding environment and landscape context)


Notes on key diagnostic characteristics

1. IBRA: The ‘Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia’ categorises the Australian continent into 80 regions of similar geology, landform, vegetation, fauna and climate. IBRA version 7 was used when defining this ecological community.

2. The use of the term ‘river’ refers to any riverine part of the river system (i.e. it includes river branches, tributaries, creeks and streams). The use of the term ‘reach’ refers to any section, stretch, length, or part of a river between two points.

3. Wallum river: Sandy, tannin stained (tea-coloured), low pH coastal freshwater rivers and streams that are typically inhabited by a different assemblage of species. They tend to be considerably shorter steeper river systems than the systems that contain this ecological community. Wallum reaches of non-Wallum river systems are not excluded from the ecological community.

4. A perennial river or stream has continuous flow in parts of its bed all year round during years of normal rainfall. Perennial streams are contrasted with intermittent streams which normally cease flowing for weeks or months each year and with ephemeral channels that flow only for hours or days following rainfall. During unusually dry years, a normally perennial stream may cease flowing, becoming intermittent for days, weeks or months depending on the severity of the drought.

5. Riffle/pool/bar: Along the river - erosion, transport, and deposition of sediments create alternating shallow and deep sections, termed ‘riffles’ and ‘pools’ respectively, and areas of emergent sediment called ‘bars’. These are of significant functional and ecological importance and are typically areas of high biodiversity.

6. The downstream limit of the ecological community is the upstream limit of the rivers’ estuary or where the river encounters a tidal weir or an impoundment behind an estuary barrage. In the absence of man-made structures, the upstream limit of mangrove growth or of saltmarshes is a good indicator of the downstream limit of the ecological community. Where an upstream mangrove or saltmarsh limit is impractical to apply, a limit set as the most downstream gauging station could be used, since these are set above the tidal influence.

7. Significant impoundment areas (reservoirs, dams and barrages) have been excluded from the ecological community. In cases where artificial impoundment has drowned riverine reaches these are considered as a loss of the ecological community, because they no longer exhibit sufficient natural characteristics (and/or functionality) of the ecological community. They are unlikely to contain the same range of species that make up this lotic (flowing riverine) ecological community. The same exclusion, as a ‘loss of the ecological community’ applies to extensively canalised sections of river (e.g. in a town centre).

8. Canalised reaches are also excluded from the ecological community as being no longer natural. Areas altered by more minor structures, such as bridges, gauging weirs and fords are not explicitly excluded; these may be considered to be degraded areas, rather than wholly unnatural. Canalised reaches are sections of the river that have been straightened or deepened, or artificially forced to flow along a particular course, by engineering works; often within a concrete channel.

9. Lentic water: A standing or non-flowing body of water such as a lake, reservoir, swamp, or artificial impoundment; as opposed to lotic, flowing waters such as rivers and streams.

10. A billabong or oxbow lake is an old river meander that has been cut off and become isolated from the main river channel.


1.6 Surrounding environment and landscape context

To conserve the aquatic ecological community it is important to consider the environment and habitat that contains it. The following indicators are considered important when assessing the value of particular areas in which the ecological community occurs:

• evidence of spawning and recruitment or the presence of a range of age cohorts for key native species

• adequate flows for ecological function and condition of the component rivers and ecological community

• good faunal habitat as indicated by areas with good connectivity and containing riffles, bars, natural pools, native aquatic macrophytes and intact native riparian vegetation, branches from other order streams (important refugia when only one stream is flooding), or other wildlife refuges and habitat values

• species richness, as shown by the variety and proportion of native fauna and flora

• presence of listed threatened species or key functional species

• areas of minimal weeds and feral animals, or where these can be managed easily.

Area critical to the survival of the aquatic ecological community

The area critical to the survival of the ecological community encompasses those lengths of river that equate to the definition of the ecological community (see Key Diagnostic Characteristics, Section 1.5) plus an appropriate buffer zone. Additional areas such as adjoining native vegetation, natural wetlands on the broader floodplain and local groundwater, lateral to the channel, are also considered important to the survival of the ecological community. Areas upstream and downstream are also important.

Buffer zones and other considerations

For the specific purposes of avoiding significant impacts on the ecological community, a buffer zone or ‘zone of influence’ should be included. A buffer zone is an area lying between two or more other areas that serves to reduce the possibility of damaging interactions between or through them (Ebregt and De Greve, 2000). A buffer zone, whilst not part of the ecological community, should be taken into consideration when protecting the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community from significant impacts.

A groundwater buffer zone is an area which is required to maintain the quality and quantity of the water in the aquifer that is part of the river system. In general, buffer effectiveness increases with increasing width (Castelle et al., 1992), however for an adequate groundwater buffer zone the residence time of water in the aquifer is of more importance than the size of the buffer (Van Waegeningh, 1981).

For the purposes of listing this ecological community, a buffer or buffer zone is defined as: A prescribed area adjacent to the ecological community that would enable enhanced conservation outcomes and be considered as a 'zone of influence' when determining potential significant impacts on the ecological community.

Beyond the ecological community, the zone of influence includes the hydraulically connected groundwater, beyond the immediate width of the ecological community; within the


unconsolidated alluvial aquifer7

‘Hydraulically connected’ describes whether or not the groundwater system is in direct contact with surface water. In contrast, a stream is ‘perched’ if an unsaturated zone separates it from the underlying groundwater system. Whether groundwater is connected with surface water, or not, is significant. Pumping groundwater from a connected stream-aquifer system will impact on the local stream flow hydrology, reducing water availability for surface water users and riverine ecosystems. Pumping shallow groundwater near a perched stream generally does not affect stream flow (Brodie et al., 2007).

. This zone of influence may include the full lateral extent of riverine sediment and the paleochannels (ancient river channels) within it.

Adjacent catchment areas provide a buffer against significant impacts and riparian buffer zones should also be applied. Riparian zones are vital elements of riverine ecosystems and their maintenance and conservation is one of the most effective means of protecting water quality, hydrology, unique species and natural communities, as well as ecosystem functions and services. Important functions of riparian buffers include enhanced infiltration of surface water runoff. Riparian vegetation increases surface roughness and slows overland flows. Water is more easily absorbed and allows for groundwater recharge. These slower flows also regulate the volume of water entering rivers and streams, thereby minimizing flood events and scouring of the streambed.

7 Unconsolidated alluvial aquifer: Sediment (such as sand, gravel, clay and silt) that is not cemented together and contains ground water, or lets groundwater travel through it.


2. Summary of threats

The main threats to the aquatic ecological community are:

2.1 Regulation, infrastructure and modification of flow Impoundments (dams, weirs, levees, barrages), other regulating structures and road crossings inundate habitat, alter flow regimes and sediment dynamics, limit the movement of fish and other animals and can disconnect the river from parts of its floodplain.

2.2 Abstraction of water Groundwater and surface water abstraction reduces natural flow, particularly over riffle habitat. It can strand fish, allow weeds to proliferate and degrade water quality, as well as affecting cues for the movement and spawning of fauna.

2.3 Geomorphic alteration of the river channel, riparian zone and the wider catchment area Clearing riparian vegetation destabilises riverbanks and disrupts river food chains (e.g. the loss of riparian zone fauna, such as insects, as well as fruits and leaf litter that fall or are washed into the river). It reduces shading, increases temperature effects and reduces the supply of woody material that is important habitat. Along with sand and gravel extraction it mobilises sediments and nutrient, disrupts flow dynamics and destroys habitat. De-snagging also removes vital river habitat.

2.4 Introduced and translocated plant and animal species Introduced animals and weed species are generally hardy and opportunistic. They prey on local residents, compete for food and habitat, disrupt breeding, introduce disease and parasites, pollute and degrade habitat and even re-engineer ecosystems.

2.5 Fishing and recreation Stocking fish for recreation can change population dynamics and introduce pest species and disease. Fish are caught and killed (legally and illegally) and even catch and release can injure fish and increase mortality, as well as disrupting breeding. Boat movements, particularly at high speed, are a threat to species such as lungfish and turtles.

2.6 Catchment development, urbanisation and diffuse pollution Excessive removal of catchment vegetation increases siltation, erosion, runoff and pollution, decreases dissolved oxygen and kills fish. Diffuse and point source urban pollutants, often in association with some form of channelisation of urban watercourses, leads to eutrophication and species decline.

2.7 The ecological community is potentially threatened by: Climate change

Current threats are likely to be compounded by the effects of climate change. In combination with these threats the main effects of climate change on freshwater biodiversity in the ecological community are likely to be changes in species' behaviour, physiology, abundance, distribution and resilience, along with changes in ecosystem productivity and nutrient status.

The nature of these threats, their impacts and levels of historical degradation are uneven across the ecological community’s range. They are greater in certain rivers (e.g. Brisbane and Logan/Albert Rivers) compared to others (e.g. the Clarence River). Further information on threats is in Appendix E. Much is being done to manage and abate current threats with a number of recovery plans and prioritised actions focused on rivers of the ecological community (further details are in Priority Conservation Actions, Section 5).


3. National context and other existing protection

3.1 National and state listed threatened species Flora

The ecological community may provide habitat for three aquatic plant species that are listed as rare or threatened under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 and/or the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995. A table of listed threatened flora is in Appendix D (Table D1).

Fauna

Five nationally listed threatened animals are known to be part of the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community as part of their habitat – Maccullochella mariensis (Mary River cod), Nannoperca oxleyana (Oxleyan pygmy perch), Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian lungfish), Mixophyes iteratus (giant barred frog); and Elusor macrurus (Mary River turtle).

A number of fauna species that utilise the ecological community are also listed under the New South Wales Fisheries Management Act 1994, the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1992 and the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992. A table of listed threatened fauna is in Appendix D (Table D2).

3.2 Other national protection The ecological community is not afforded any direct protection by RAMSAR wetlands of international importance or National or World Heritage listings. The RAMSAR listed site Great Sandy Strait (including Great Sandy Strait, Tin Can Bay and Tin Can Inlet) occurs adjacent to the mouth of the Mary River.

3.3 Threatened ecological communities recognised under state jurisdiction No ecological communities listed under the New South Wales Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 or Queensland Regional Ecosystems (REs) listed under the Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999 directly equate to the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. However, a number of vegetation-based listed ecological communities, or REs, may occur adjacent to the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. For example, at the time of this advice, at least five Queensland REs (RE: 12.3.1, 12.3.2, 12.3.3, 12.3.11 and 12.3.14) and seven New South Wales listed ecological communities occur adjacent to the aquatic ecological community.

Further references to these and other forms of regulation and protection such as the Queensland Water Act 2000, the New South Wales Water Management Act 2000 and key threatening processes are in Appendix D. Please refer to the relevant federal government or state agency’s websites for further information on legislation and other policy documents.


4. Summary of eligibility for listing against the EPBC Act criteria.

The full assessment against the EPBC Act threatened ecological communities listing criteria for the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community can be found in Appendix F, Detailed assessment of eligibility for listing against the EPBC Act criteria.

4.1 Criterion 1 - Decline in geographic distribution There are data deficiencies in addressing this criterion across the entire national extent of the ecological community. In particular it is not possible to determine the decline in extent e.g. as loss of river reaches from impoundments8

, for the entire ecological community. The available information for one river system (the Mary River) gives an estimated absolute loss of 16% of the river reaches. This falls well below the minimum threshold of 70%. The Committee therefore considers the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.

4.2 Criterion 2 - Small geographic distribution coupled with demonstrable threat The Committee considered the ecological community to have a limited geographic distribution, based on an estimated area of occupancy of less than 1000 km2. The nature and degree of threats are uneven across the ecological community’s range and within individual river systems. Available data indicate variable levels of impact within individual river systems and do not indicate that a threatening process could cause the whole, or nearly all, of the ecological community to be lost within the medium term future. The Committee, therefore, considers that the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.

4.3 Criterion 3 - Loss or decline of functionally important species There is limited quantitative information across the entire aquatic ecological community to address this criterion. There is some information concerning the functional roles of certain species (notably native freshwater fishes) and information that some migratory fish species are in decline in parts of the ecological community. However, this decline can be ameliorated by positive interventions that can allow fauna to recover within reasonable timeframes. Fish stocking, well developed and prioritised plans to recover fish passage, ongoing research into the flow requirements of species impacted by water resources development, along with environmental flow objectives in Queensland and other existing plans and management prescriptions mean that further decline may be halted or reversed in the medium-term future by management intervention. Therefore, it has not been demonstrated that restoration of the community is unlikely within the medium-term future given positive human intervention and increasing knowledge.

The Committee, therefore, considers that the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.

8 Where a significant artificial impoundment, such as behind a dam, barrage, or large weirs has permanently inundated riverine reaches, these are considered a loss of the national ecological community. Reservoirs and artificially impounded water, as well as natural lakes, are not considered to contain the ecological community (see Section 1.5, Key diagnostic characteristics)


Criterion 4 - Reduction in community integrity

The Committee considered relevant indicators of reduction in community integrity to include water, river and catchment quality scores from a range of assessments and the impacts of artificial barriers in river systems.

In general, a compilation of available information does not give a clear picture of the condition across the entire ecological community. What is apparent is that the quality of some reaches within the ecological community has declined; although other reaches appear to be less impacted. Later assessments imply there has been either an improvement in river condition or that the impacts are less severe than previously indicated.

There are limited quantitative data on the decline in fish numbers, or biomass, directly related to the barriers in the ecological community; but it is clear that disruption of the migration, breeding and recruitment of diadromous fish species is substantial. Therefore, the reduction in integrity across much of the ecological community’s geographic distribution is substantial, as indicated by the substantial disruption of important community processes.

However, a number of these impacts can be ameliorated by positive interventions that can allow fauna to recover within reasonable timeframes. It has not been demonstrated that restoration is unlikely within the medium-term future given positive human intervention and increasing knowledge. The Committee, therefore, considers that the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.

Criterion 5 - Rate of continuing detrimental change

There are indications (e.g. from water quality and catchment condition scores) that detrimental change may continue to occur in parts of the ecological community. However, there are no quantitative data that measure what rate of detrimental change applies across the entire range of the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. Therefore, the Committee considers the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.

Criterion 6 - Quantitative analysis showing probability of extinction

There are no quantitative data available to assess this ecological community under this criterion. Therefore, it is not eligible for listing under this criterion.


5. Priority Conservation Actions

5.1 Research priorities and priority recovery and threat abatement actions

The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community has not demonstrated that it meets the criteria for listing as threatened under the EPBC Act. However, as outlined above there is a range of threats operating on the aquatic ecological community that could cause it to be lost over the longer-term. Some priority research and conservation actions, considered necessary to prevent the community becoming threatened, are recommended below; the relative priority of these may vary from one catchment to another.

Careful management and substantial recovery are very important because of the ecological community’s high biodiversity and critical role as endemic habitat for several threatened species and its importance in the broader ecological processes within the seven catchments. The earlier section (1.6 Surrounding environment and landscape context), includes information on applying buffer zones, indicators to considered when assessing the value of particular areas and the areas critical to the survival of the ecological community.

Priority research and recovery actions include (but are not limited to):

• Undertake comprehensive aquatic flora and fauna surveys within the ecological community.

• Identify key functional and other priority species and protect and increase the quality, extent and connectivity of their habitats.

• Undertake research and monitoring to close gaps in knowledge related to the ecology of priority species and the ecological community, and their recovery.

• Undertake research to increase knowledge of the ecological and life history requirements of riverine aquatic macroinvertebrates.

• Encourage best practice management of the ecological community and surrounding catchments with a view to protecting them from further modification and degradation. This includes minimising disruption of river flow, retaining native riverbank vegetation, reducing nutrient runoff and erosion, managing impacts by stock and feral animals, and preventing impacts to natural hydrology and water quality.

• Undertake remediation, or removal where practical, of high priority barriers to native fish passage. Develop and/or implement strategies to extend remediation or removal of barriers to biopassage throughout river catchments.

• Support a coordinated approach to the management of existing feral animals and weeds, and, where possible, prevent the introduction and spread of additional feral animals and weeds within the ecological community.

• Research and apply methods to manage exotic fish populations.

• Undertake public education to promote awareness of the importance of the ecological community and sustainable use of the rivers for recreation. For instance promote appropriate fishing bag limits and restrictions in line with existing regulations and management actions.

• Recognise the cultural value of the ecological community to the community at large, including Indigenous Australians, and engage with people in the protection and enhancement of biodiversity and associated cultural values.


A great deal of work has already been carried out in a number of catchments to increase knowledge, consult with stakeholders, prioritise and implement recovery actions as well as to initiate further research. Further guidance on conservation actions relevant to this ecological community or its constituent species can be obtained from numerous existing plans, studies and management prescriptions, some of which are referenced below.

5.2 Existing plans/management prescriptions

These prescriptions were available at the time of publishing. This list is not exhaustive and further information may be available elsewhere. Please refer to the websites of the relevant government agencies or other organisations for any updated versions or new information that has been published.

Allen GR, Midgley SH and Allen M (2002). Field guide to the freshwater fishes of Australia. Museum of Western Australia and CSIRO Publishing.

Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council [ANZECC] (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality, Volume 1. ANZEEC and Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

Deakin University (2009). Recovery pathways after flow restoration in rivers. Waterlines report. National Water Commission.

Burnett Mary Regional Group for Natural Resource Management [BMRG NRM] (2008). Mary Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP). BMRG NRM and the Wide Bay Water Corporation.

BMRG NRM (2010). The Burnett-Baffle Water Quality Improvement plan (WQIP).

Fisheries Queensland (2012). Fish habitat guidelines. http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/28_12907.htm

Hunter H, Fellows C, Rassam D, DeHayr R, Pagendam D, Conway C, Bloesch P and Beard N (2006). Managing riparian lands to improve water quality: optimising nitrate removal via denitrification. Cooperative Research Centre for Coastal Zone, Estuary and Waterway Management (Coastal CRC). http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/pdf/CRC/57-riparian_guidelines.pdf

Koehn J, Brumley A and Gehrke P (2000). Managing the impacts of carp. Bureau of Rural Sciences. http://www.feral.org.au/managing-the-impacts-of-carp/

Land and Water Australia (2004). Managing riparian widths. River and riparian management fact sheet 13. http://lwa.gov.au/products/pf040748

Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee (2001). Mary River and tributaries rehabilitation plan - Implementation edition. http://www.mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/Mary%20River%20&%20tributaries%20Rehabilitation%20Plan/Implementation%20Edition%202001.pdf

NSW Department of Climate Change and Water [DECCW] (2009b). Draft Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan, National Recovery Plan for the Northern Rivers Region. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/northern-rivers.html

NSW DECCW (2010a). Far North Coast regional conservation plan.

NSW DECCW (2010b). Draft Mid North Coast regional conservation plan.

NSW DPI [Department of Primary Industries] (2012). Improving fish habitats. http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/rehabilitating/habitats

http://www.daff.qld.gov.au/28_12907.htm�

http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/pdf/CRC/57-riparian_guidelines.pdf�

http://www.feral.org.au/managing-the-impacts-of-carp/�

http://lwa.gov.au/products/pf040748�

http://www.mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/Mary%20River%20&%20tributaries%20Rehabilitation%20Plan/Implementation%20Edition%202001.pdf�

http://www.mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/Mary%20River%20&%20tributaries%20Rehabilitation%20Plan/Implementation%20Edition%202001.pdf�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/northern-rivers.html�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/northern-rivers.html�

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/rehabilitating/habitats�


NSW Government (1992). The NSW sand and gravel extraction policy for non-tidal rivers. A component of the state rivers and estuaries policy.

NSW Government (2010). State of the catchments 2010 – riverine ecosystems – Northern Rivers region. http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/soc/northernrivers/10422NRIVERSriver.pdf

Pollard DA, Llewellyn LC and Tilzey RDJ (1980). Management of freshwater fish and fisheries. In: WD Williams (ed.) ‘An ecologica1 basis for water resource management’. ANU Press.

Price P and Lovett S (Eds.) (1999a). Riparian land management technical guidelines. Volume 1: Principles of sound management. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. http://lwa.gov.au/products/pr990322

Price P and Lovett S (Eds.) (1999b). Riparian land management technical guidelines. Volume 2: On-ground management tools and techniques. Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation. http://lwa.gov.au/products/pr990323

Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management [Qld DERM] (2010). Mary River environmental values and water quality objectives Basin No. 138, including all tributaries of the Mary River.

Qld DERM (2011). Queensland wetland buffer planning guideline. Queensland Wetlands Program. http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ManagementTools/Guidelines/bufferguidelines.html

Qld DEHP [Department of Environment and Heritage Protection] (2012). Moreton Bay/South-east Queensland scheduled environmental values [EVs] and water quality objectives [WQOs]. Website with links to plans for specific river systems http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/schedule1/moreton_bay_southeast_queensland_scheduled_evs__wqos.html

Qld DEHP (2012). Mary River Basin / Great Sandy Basin scheduled environmental values [EVs] and Water Quality Objectives [WQOs]. Website with links to plans for specific river systems. http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/schedule1/mary_river_basin_great_sandy_region_scheduled_evs__wqos.html

Simpson R and Jackson P (1996). The Mary River cod research and recovery plan. Fisheries Group, Queensland Department of Primary Industries. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/mary-river-cod/index.html

Stockwell B, Fennesy R, Berghuis A, Johnston B and Hutchison M (2008). Burnett Mary regional biopass strategy. Reconnecting the Dreamtime’s Rainbow Serpent. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries.

Threatened Species Scientific Committee [TSSC] (in preparation). Mary River threatened (aquatic) species recovery plan. Wager R and Jackson R (1993). The action plan for Australian freshwater fishes. Environment Australia. http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/fish/index.html

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/soc/northernrivers/10422NRIVERSriver.pdf�

http://lwa.gov.au/products/pr990322�


http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ManagementTools/Guidelines/bufferguidelines.html�

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/schedule1/moreton_bay_southeast_queensland_scheduled_evs__wqos.html�

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/schedule1/moreton_bay_southeast_queensland_scheduled_evs__wqos.html�

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/schedule1/mary_river_basin_great_sandy_region_scheduled_evs__wqos.html�

http://www.ehp.qld.gov.au/water/policy/schedule1/mary_river_basin_great_sandy_region_scheduled_evs__wqos.html�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/mary-river-cod/index.html�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/mary-river-cod/index.html�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/fish/index.html�


5.3 Limitations and constraints to biodiversity protection

Stockwell et al. (2004) detailed the limitations and constraints to the success of resource management planning responses to protect, maintain and enhance aquatic biodiversity in the Burnett Mary region, which contains the northern extent of the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. These limitations and constraints are relevant to the ecological community as a whole and are summarised below.

Fish

The main limitations to the success of current and past fish related responses include:

• Knowledge required for effective habitat restoration for fishes is at a developmental stage.

• Key research and recovery plan implementation have been dependent on short term and patchy resourcing for their implementation.

• There are conflicting values regarding water infrastructure development and flow releases for environmental purposes, including allocation of water fishways.

• There is some resistance to the idea of re-snagging, when for a long time river management has included removal of large woody debris. The benefits of in-stream wood are not yet widely recognised, but benefits have been clearly demonstrated by restoration projects.

• Fish passage is typically only mandatory for new structures or when an existing structure is to be raised or modified. Removing or modifying existing barriers require positive community attitudes, the good will of the structures’ owners and/or external resourcing. This is a particular issue at the Gympie weir, which is the largest impediment on the main trunk of the Mary River without fish passage.

• Responsibility for freshwater fish habitat and factors impacting on fish habitat falls across various organisations. Whole of catchment problems require a coordinated approach to solve.

Riparian Zones

The main limitations to the success of current and past responses include:

• Enthusiasm for riparian rehabilitation is high with the major constraint identified being the availability of resources for riparian rehabilitation by property owners.

• Mapping riparian zones is difficult, from a logistical and accuracy point-of-view. More ground-truthing is required.

• Riparian environmental weeds have invaded most of the Burnett Mary region. Thin riparian zones (including rehabilitated areas) are very susceptible to weed invasion, due to high light intensities and high disturbance, particularly after flooding.

• Previous authorised activities such as excessive sand and gravel extraction and weir construction have caused major negative impacts to the condition of the riparian zones throughout the region.


Frogs

The main limitations to the success of current and past frog related responses include:

• Knowledge gaps make it difficult to quantify the distributions of frogs at a local scale and their importance within ecosystems and their contribution to environmental services.

• Long-term data is currently very limited but is required to determine natural trends in frog populations.

• As frog populations can mirror environmental changes it is important to address environmental health issues as well as direct investigation into population dynamics of frog populations. Frogs have the potential to be indicators of ecosystem health and riverine rehabilitation success.

• Protection of frogs and their habitat on freehold land is difficult and often relies on the willingness of property owners to voluntarily protect areas.

• Protection through legislation is made more effective when backed up by extension and education.

Turtles & Mammals

The key limitations in relation to turtles and mammals (particular threatened and locally rare species) include:

• Knowledge of nesting sites and region wide survey of distribution.

• Need for genetic assessment of population structure.

• Knowledge of movements in relation to traditional nesting banks.

• Life history of smaller turtles is poorly understood.

• Regional Water Planning needs to be designed to limit impacts on species recovery. Aquatic Weeds

The main limitations to success of current and weed related responses include:

• Lack of early detection, containment and eradication.

• Insufficient understanding of safe herbicide control methods including an evaluation of new products for waterweed use.

• Lack of research into non-herbicide or alternative control methods for potable water storages e.g. fire, steam, mechanical, competitive plants and draw down.

• Insufficient knowledge of why the established biological control agents have variable success.

• Poor understanding of the role of native water plants as competitive species and of the requirements of native aquatics.

• Lack of water survey methods that are fast, simple and reflect the biology and dispersal patterns of weeds.

5.4 Recovery plan Given the conclusion that this ecological community has not met the criteria for listing there will be no national recovery plan.


5.5 Implications of not listing this ecological community The conclusion that this ecological community does not merit listing as a threatened ecological community has certain implications.

• It means that the ecological community is not eligible for protection as a matter of national environmental significance, in its own right, under the EPBC Act.

• However, the ecological community provides broader habitat for many component species. Some of these are listed as threatened either nationally or by state jurisdictions and as such are protected in their own right. The nature of protection afforded to any threatened species should take into account the habitat values provided by the river systems inhabited by each species. Some of the key ecological processes, habitat values and other considerations regarding the conservation of these systems are covered in this advice.

• Another benefit of national listing is raising public awareness of and support for listed threatened species and ecological communities. However, in the case of the river systems included in the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community, there is increasing awareness of their status and quality. This is largely due to the ecosystem services provided by the component river systems. Key services include the provision and quality of water supplies for urban and agricultural use; recreational activities such as sustainable fishing or swimming; and conservation of natural biodiversity.

• A decision not to list this ecological community as nationally threatened should not detract from future efforts to conserve the biodiversity, ecological processes and services inherent within the river system. Some priority conservation actions to abate threats and stop the ecological community from being threatened are needed in the longer term and are outlined in Section 5.1(Research priorities and priority recovery and threat abatement actions). Importantly, existing measures must be maintained to conserve the ecological community and restore species composition, integrity and functionality.

6. Appendices Appendix A: Distribution map and description of catchments. Figure A1: Distribution map of the ecological community (title panel)


Figure A1(continued): Distribution map of the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community (map panel)

A large version (A3) of this map is available on the Department’s website, via the Species Profile and Threats Database (SPRAT) at http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl .Search for the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community’s SPRAT Profile. Alternately, the direct link is: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/maps/pubs/95-map.pdf

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl�

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/sprat.pl�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/maps/pubs/95-map.pdf�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/communities/maps/pubs/95-map.pdf�


Appendix A (continued): Description of catchments Table A1: River systems in which the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community occurs. Arranged from north to south. Sources: Norris et al. (2001) and Bonzl (2012).

State River Catchment

Length of Catchment’s Eponymous* River (km)

Length of reaches in basin (km)

Catchment Size (km2)

IBRA V7 (National) Bioregion

Queensland or New South

Wales (State) Bioregion

Qld

Kolan 187 356 2911 *SEQ South East Qld

Burnett 435 3480 33 334 SEQ South East Qld

Mary 310 1089 9411 SEQ South East Qld

Brisbane 309 1468 13 583 SEQ South East Qld

Logan9184 478 4142 SEQ South East Qld

NSW Richmond 248 757 7031 SEQ North Coast

Clarence 343 2573 22 283 SEQ & #NNC North Coast

Total 10 201 92 695

Key - IBRA Bioregions: *SEQ = South Eastern Queensland; #NNC = New South Wales North Coast. This table illustrates the different boundaries used for the state designated and for the nationally designated (IBRA) bioregions in New South Wales (e.g. the New South Wales portion of the ‘South Eastern Queensland’ IBRA

Bioregion has been incorporated into the ‘North Coast’ New South Wales state bioregion). Also note that, within Queensland, all the rivers of the ecological community, are in the Queensland South East Freshwater

Biogeographic Province (SE FBP).

Kolan The Kolan River catchment in south east Queensland covers an area of approximately 3000 km2. The river rises in the Dawes Range, 100 km north west of Bundaberg. It flows south easterly for 70 km before entering Lake Monduran and passing through the Fred Haigh Dam. Below the Dam and the Bucca Range, the Kolan River enters a wide coastal plain, generally under large areas of sugar cane cultivation. Gin Gin Creek, its major tributary, rises in the Burnett Range 35 km west of Gin Gin and flows in an easterly direction joining the Kolan River 10 km above Bucca Weir (BoM, 2011). The Kolan River flows into the Coral Sea of the South Pacific Ocean, five km north west of Bundaberg. The Kolan River drops 517 m over its approximately 187 km length (Bonzl, 2012). The tidal limit on the Kolan River is the Kolan Barrage which is located 25 km northeast of Bundaberg at AMTD10

9 Logan: The Logan River catchment is also referred to as the Logan-Albert catchment.

14.5 km.

10 AMTD: Adopted Middle Thread Distance. The distance along a watercourse in kilometres (measured along the middle of a watercourse) at which a specific point occurs (i.e. distance from the watercourse's mouth; or if the watercourse is not a main watercourse, distance from the watercourse's confluence with its main watercourse).


Burnett

The Burnett River in south east Queensland rises in the Dawes Range, just north of Monto and flows south through Eidsvold and Mundubbera. It is joined by the Nogo and Auburn rivers which drain large areas in the west of the catchment. Just before Mundubbera, the main river is joined by the Boyne River draining areas from the south. The river then flows northeast passing through Bundaberg and into the Coral Sea of the South Pacific Ocean. The total area of the catchment is approximately 33 000 km2 (BoM, 2011). The Burnett River drops 485 m over its approximately 435 km length (Bonzl, 2012). The tidal limit on the Burnett River is the Ben Anderson Barrage tidal barrier at AMTD 26.9 km.

Mary

The headwaters of the Mary River are located in high rainfall areas around Maleny and Mapleton in south east Queensland. The river flows north then east, through Gympie and Maryborough and into the Coral Sea, just west of Fraser Island (BoM, 2011). The Mary River catchment covers an area of less than 10 000 km2 and is surrounded by the Conondale, Jimma and Burnett ranges. The Mary River drops 209 m over its approximately 291 km length (Bonzl, 2012).The tidal limit on the Mary River is the Mary Tidal Barrage southwest of Maryborough at AMTD 59.3 km. Tinana Creek, a tributary of the Mary River, also has a Tidal Barrage, southeast of Maryborough at AMTD 1.6 km.

Brisbane

The Brisbane River in south east Queensland rises in the Brisbane Range, east of Kingaroy. Cooyar and Emu creeks enter the river from the east, below Wivenhoe Dam. A major tributary, the Stanley River, rises in the Conondale Ranges south east of Maleny, flowing south west through one of the heaviest rainfall areas in Australia, past Kilcoy, into Somerset Dam and then Wivenhoe Dam. The Lockyer-Laidley Valley drains into the Brisbane River just downstream of Wivenhoe Dam near Lowood. The Lockyer Valley is an intensive market gardening area. Another major tributary, the Bremer River, flows into the Brisbane River at Moggill. The Brisbane River catchment covers an area of approximately 15 000 km2, of which approximately half is below Wivenhoe Dam (BoM, 2011). The Brisbane River drops 215 m over its approximately 309 km length (Bonzl, 2012) ending as a tide-dominated delta.

The Brisbane River Catchment supports the largest human population of any catchment in Queensland. The upper catchment is mainly rural, while the lower catchment is urbanised. Most of the overall catchment comprises forest and grazing land, with the exception of the Brisbane/Ipswich metropolitan regions and numerous small rural townships. Less than 15% of the catchment remains uncleared (CRC for Catchment Hydrology, 2005). Historically, the Brisbane River contained upstream bars and shallows and had a natural tidal limit of only 16km. Navigational dredging of the Brisbane River bar has extended the tidal limit a further 70 km upstream.


Logan-Albert

The Logan River flows from the McPherson Ranges in the south on the Queensland New South Wales border, north to the Logan City-Beenleigh area. Its major tributaries are the Albert River and Teviot Brook. The Albert River flows into the Logan River 12 km upstream of the Pacific Ocean (BoM, 2011).

The long narrow Logan-Albert catchment has an area of less than 4000 km2. The Logan River drops 381 m over its approximately 184 km length (Bonzl, 2012). The catchment of the upper reaches of the river is largely cleared for cattle grazing, dairying and some irrigated agriculture; the remainder of the Logan River flows through a combination of urban and rural residential areas (Abal et al., 2002). The tidal limit of the Logan is approximately 60 km upstream of the river mouth.

Richmond

The Richmond River catchment in northeast New South Wales covers approximately 7000 km2, with a large coastal plain stretching from south of Evans Head north towards Cape Byron. The Border Ranges National Park and the Richmond Range form the northern and western limits of the catchment (Northern Rivers CMA, 2011). The river starts near Dairy Flat and drops 237 m over its approximately 248 km length (Bonzl, 2012). Its longest tributary, Wilsons River, flows from the east and joins the Richmond near South Lismore. There is a strong tidal influence on the river which extends past Lismore on the Wilsons River and to beyond Tatham on the Richmond River. The upland ranges and the plateau north of Lismore remain mostly forested.

The average yearly discharge of the Richmond River is 1,920,000 megalitres. The Richmond River is subject to tidal influences that can affect water movement as far upstream as Coraki, approximately 90 km from the river mouth. The Richmond River meets the ocean at Ballina (ANRA, 2002). Its floodplain, where the ecological community occurs, has an area of over 1000 km² and is the largest coastal floodplain in New South Wales. The tidal limit for the Richmond River is 4 km downstream from Irving Bridge, Casino and 114 km from the ocean. In terms of a biotic indicator of tidal influence however, when the river was surveyed in the mid-2000s, the mangrove that was growing furthest upstream, was 45 km from the ocean (NSW DNR, 2006).

Clarence

The Clarence River in north east New South Wales starts near Rivertree and flows through Grafton to the estuary mouth at Yamba-Iluka. It is the largest of all NSW coastal rivers, in both catchment area and river discharge. The catchment is bounded by: the Mcpherson Ranges on the Queensland border in the north; the Baldblair and Doughboy Ranges and the Dorrigo Plateau in the south; and the Great Dividing Range, from Stanthorpe to Glen Innes in the tableland areas to the west. The catchment has an area of almost 23 000 km2. The 830 km2

Clarence floodplain where the ecological community occurs consists of low lying, flat alluvial plains, intersected by lagoons, channels and creeks (Clarence Landcare, 2012). The Clarence River drops 256 m over its approximately 343 km length (Bonzl, 2012). In the Clarence River, the tide is stopped by rocky rapids at Copmanhurst, 110 km from the ocean. In terms of a biotic indicator of tidal influence, when the river was surveyed in the mid-2000s, the mangrove that was growing furthest upstream was 53 km from the ocean (NSW DNR, 2006).


Appendix B: Species lists

Table B1: Vascular plants that are characteristic of the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales.

The following is an indicative rather than comprehensive list of plant species present in the ecological community. Scientific names are current as at February 2013.

Scientific name Common name

Allocasuarina spp. she-oak or swamp-oak

Aponogeton elongatus Queensland lace

Aponogeton queenslandicus an aquatic plant

Azolla filiculoides azolla

Azolla pinnata azolla

Bacopa monnieri coastal waterhyssop, brahmi, thyme-leafed gratiola

Bolboschoenus fluviatilis river bulrush, marsh club-rush

Brasenia schreberi water shield

Callitriche stagnalis starwort

Calllistemon viminalis weeping bottlebrush

Carex gaudichaudiana sedge

Casuarina cunnighamiana river she-oak

Casuarina spp. she-oak or swamp-oak

Ceratophyllum demersum hornwort

Chara spp. stonewort

Crytocarya triplinervis three-veined laurel

Cyperus eragrostis umbrella sedge

Cyperus exaltatus flat sedge, umbrella sedge, common sedge

Cyperus spp. sedge

Damasonium minus starfruit

Eleocharis dietrichiana

Eleocharis philippinensis

Eleocharis plana flat spike sedge

Eleocharis pusilla small spike rush

Eleocharis sphacelata kaya



Hydrilla verticillata water thyme

Hydrocotyle tripartita pennywort

Isolepis fluitans floating club-rush

Juncus usitatus common rush

Lemna triscula ivy duckweed

Limnobium dubium frogbit

Ludwigia peploides water primrose

Lychnothamnus barbatus a green algae

Marsilea drummondii common nardoo

Marsilea hirsuta short-fruit nardoo

Marsilea mutica nardoo

Myriophyllum aquaticum parrots feather

Myriophyllum variifolium variable water-milfoil

Myriophyllum verrucosum red water milfoil

Najas tenuifolia water nymph, thin-leaved naiad

Nasturtium aquaticum

Nitella spp. stonewort

Nymphaea gigantea giant waterlily

Nymphoides indica water snowflake

Ottelia spp.

Paspalum distichum knotgrass

Phragmites australis common reed

Potamogeton crispus curly pondweed

Potamogeton ochreatus blunt pondweed

Potamogeton perfoliatus clasped pondweed

Potamogeton tricarinatus floating pondweed, water thyme

Ranunculus spp. buttercup

Rotala mexicana

Rumex bidens mud dock

Rumex crispus curled dock



Schoenoplectus validus river club-rush, great bulrush

Spirodela punctata duckweed

Triglochin procera water ribbon

Tristaniopsis laurina water gum

Typha orientalis broadleaf cumbungi, bulrush

Vallisneria australis ribbon weed

Vallisneria nana ribbon weed, eel weed, eelgrass


Table B2: Vertebrate fauna species characteristic of, or associated with, the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community. The following is an indicative rather than a comprehensive list. Scientific names are current as at December 2012. * Species which may be outside its natural range. # Exotic species. For mammals and birds - Species in bold are more fully aquatic in nature.


Fish

Acanthopagrus australis yellow fin bream

Ambassis agassizii olive perchlet, Agassiz's glassfish, western chanda perch

Ambassis marianus estuary perchlet

Amniataba percoides* 11 barred / banded grunter

Anguilla australis shortfinned eel

Anguilla reinhardtii Longfinned / marbled eel

Arrhamphus sclerolepis short / no bill / snubnose(d) garfish, jumping halfbeak

Bidyanus bidyanus* silver perch

Carcharhinus leucas river shark

Carassius auratus # goldfish

Craterocephalus marjoriae Marjorie’s hardyhead

Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum fly-specked hardyhead

Elops australis giant herring

Favonigobius sp. estuarine goby

Galaxias maculatus common galaxias / jollytail

Gambusia holbrooki* gambusia

Glossamia aprion mouth almighty

Gobiomorphus australis striped gudgeon

Gobiomorphus coxii Cox's gudgeon

Hypseleotris compressa empire / carp gudgeon

Hypseleotris klunzingeri western carp gudgeon

Hypseleotris galii fire-tail gudgeon

Hypseleotris sp. A Midgley's carp gudgeon

Kuhlia rupestris jungle perch

11 Amniataba percoides (barred grunter) whilst native to the River Burnett and rivers to the north, is a translocated pest species in rivers to the south (in south east Queensland and north east New South Wales), such as the Brisbane and the Clarence rivers.



Lates calcarifer barramundi

Leiopotherapon unicolor spangled perch

Lutjanus argentimaculatus mangrove jack

Maccullochella ikei eastern freshwater cod, Clarence River cod Maccullochella mariensis (syn. M. peelii) Mary River cod

Macquaria ambigua* golden perch

Macquaria novemaculeata Australian bass

Megalops cyprinoides ox-eye herring

Melanotaenia duboulayi Duboulay's rainbowfish

Mogurnda adspersa Purple-spotted gudgeon

Mugil cephalus sea / bully / striped / flathead mullet

Myxus petardi freshwater mullet

Nematalosa erebi bony herring / bream Neoarius graefferi (previously Arius graeffei) blue / fork tailed / salmon catfish

Neoceratodus forsteri Australian lungfish

Neosilurus hyrtlii Hyrtl's catfish

Notesthes robusta bullrout

Oxyeleotris lineolatus* Sleepy cod

Potamalosa richmondia freshwater / Nepean herring

Porochilus rendahli Rendahl's catfish

Philypnodon grandiceps flathead gudgeon

Pseudomugil signifer pacific blue-eye

Redigobius bikolanus blue-eyed goby

Retropinna semoni Australian smelt

Scleropages leichardti saratoga

Tandanus tandanus Freshwater/eel-tailed catfish

Xiphorus helleri# sword tail * Species which may be outside its natural range. # Exotic species.



Frogs

Adelotus brevis tusked frog

Limnodynastes dumerilii grey bellied pobblebonk / eastern banjo frog

Litoria chloris orange eyed tree frog

Litoria pearsoniana cascade tree frog

Litoria verreauxii whistling tree frog

Litoria wilcoxii stony creek frog

Mixophyes iterateus southern /giant barred-frog

Mixophyes fasciolatus great barred frog

Reptiles

Chelodina expansa broad-shelled River turtle

Chelodina longicollis eastern long-necked turtle, snake-necked turtle

Elseya albagula white throated / Burnett River / southern snapping turtle

Elusor macrurus Mary River turtle

Emydura macquarii krefftii Krefft's short-necked turtle

Emydura macquarii macquarii 12 Macquarie River turtle, Murray turtle

Eroticoscincus graciloides elf skink

Eulamprus quoyii eastern water skink Hemiaspis damelii grey snake

Hemiaspis signata black-bellied swamp snake

Macrochelodina expansa (formerly Chelodina expansa) broad-shelled river turtle

Myuchelys latisternum (formerly Elseya or Wollumbinia latisternum) saw-shelled turtle

Physignathus lesueurii lesueurii eastern water dragon Pseudechis porphyriacus red-bellied black snake

Tropidechis carinatus rough-scaled snake

Tropidonophis mairii freshwater snake

12 The species Emydura macquarii macquarii now includes individuals referred to as Brisbane short-necked turtles, previously regarded as a separate species (Emydura signata) subsequently synonymised.



Mammals

Chalinolobus dwyeri large-eared pied bat

Chalinolobus gouldii Gould’s wattled bat

Chalinolobus morio chocolate wattled bat

Chalinolobus nigrogriseus hoary wattled bat

Hydromys chrysogaster water rat

Myotis macropus large-footed myotis

Micronomus norfolkensis east-coast freetail bat

Miniopterus australis little bentwing bat

Mormopterus beccarii Beccari’s freetail / mastiff bat

Mormopterus ridei eastern freetail bat

Ornithorhynchus anatinus platypus Pteropus poliocephalus Grey-headed flying-fox

Rattus lutreolus swamp rat

Rhinolophus megaphyllus eastern horseshoe bat

Scoteana rueppellii greater broad-nosed bat

Vespadelus vulturnus little forest bat

Xeromys myoides water mouse

Species in bold are more fully aquatic in nature.


Birds

Accipiter cirrocephalus collared sparrowhawk

Accipiter fasciatus brown goshawk

Accipiter novaehollandiae grey goshawk

Alcedo azurea azure kingfisher

Anseranas semipalmata magpie goose

Ardea pacifica white-necked heron

Aviceda subcristata Pacific baza

Butorides striata striated heron

Chenonetta jubata Australian wood duck

Cygnus atratus black swan


Scientific name Common name Dendrocygna arcuata wandering whistling-duck

Dendrocygna eytoni plumed whistling-duck

Egretta novaehollandiae white-faced heron

Elseyornis melanops black-fronted dotterel / plover Ephippiorhynchus (Ephippiorhynchus) asiaticus black-necked stork

Falco berigora brown falcon

Falco cenchroides Nankeen kestrel

Falco longipennis Australian hobby

Falco peregrinus peregrine falcon

Falco subniger black falcon

Grus rubicunda brolga

Haliaeetus leucogaster white-bellied sea-eagle

haliastur sphenurus whistling kite

Irediparra gallinacea comb-crested jacana Malacorhynchus membranaceus pink-eared duck

Milvus migrans black kite Nycticorax caledonicus Nankeen night heron

Oxyura australis blue-billed duck

Pandion cristatus eastern osprey

Pandion haliaetus fish eagle, fish hawk, osprey

Stictonetta naevosa freckled duck Tachybaptus novaehollandiae Australasian grebe

Tyto longimembris masked owl

Vanellus miles masked lapwing

Species in bold are more fully aquatic in nature.


Table B3: Invertebrates of the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community. Source: Health-e-Waterways (2013). The following is an indicative rather than comprehensive list. Given the nature of the diversity and knowledge of the Australian aquatic invertebrate fauna, only higher level taxa are generally noted here. Scientific names are current as at December 2012.

Arthropods – Insects Taxon (common name where available)

Order Family

Coleoptera (beetles) Carabidae (ground beetles)

Dytiscidae (diving beetles)

Elmidae (riffle beetles)

Gyrinidae (whirligig beetles)

Hydraenidae (water beetles)

Hydrochidae (water beetles)

Hydrophilidae (water scavenger beetles)

Psephenidae (water penny beetles)

Scirtidae

Staphylinidae (rove beetles)

Diptera (flies) Athericidae

Ceratopogonidae (sand flies)

Culicidae (mosquitoes)

Dixidae

Chironomidae (midges)

Simuliidae (black flies)

Stratiomyidae (soldier flies)

Tipulidae (crane flies)

Ephemeroptera (mayflies) Baetidae

Caenidae (small squaregill mayflies)

Leptophlebiidae (prong-gilled mayflies)

Hemiptera (true bugs) Corixidae (water boatmen)

Gelastocoridae (toad bugs)

Gerridae (water striders)

Hebridae (velvet water bugs)

Hydrometridae (marsh treaders)

Mesoveliidae (water treaders)


Arthropods – Insects Taxon (common name where available)

Order Family

Notonectidae (back-swimmers)

Veliidae (riffle bugs, broad-shouldered water striders)

Megaloptera (alderflies) Sialidae

Neuroptera (lacewings) Sisyridae

Odonata – Anisoptera (dragonflies) Cordulephyidae

Gomphidae

Libellulidae

Synthemistidae

Telephlebiidae

Odonata – Zygoptera (damselflies) Coenagrionidae

Isostictidae

Megapodagrionidae

Protoneuridae

Synlestidae

Plecoptera (stoneflies)

Trichoptera (caddisflies) Calamoceratidae

Ecnomidae

Helicopsychidae

Hydroptilidae

Leptoceridae

Polycentropodidae

Tasimiidae


Arthropods – Other groups Taxon (common name, where available)

Taxon Family

Arachnida – Acarina (e.g. water mites)

Arachnida – Araneae (e.g. water spiders)

Crustacea – Amphipoda (amphipods) Talitridae

Crustacea – Cladocera (water fleas)

Crustacea – Copepoda (copepods)

Crustacea - Decapoda Atyidae (shrimps) e.g. Australatya striolata (riffle shrimp)

Palaemonidae (prawns) e.g. Macrobrachium spp. (long-clawed freshwater prawns)

Parastacidae (yabbies, crayfish)

Crustacea – Isopoda (isopods, slaters) Cirolanidae Mollusca

Family Common name

Ancylidae e.g. Ferrisia sp. freshwater limpets

Corbiculidae orb-shell mussels; basket clams

Hydrobiidae little river snails; mud snails

Planorbidae left-handed pond snails; flat-coils; ramshorns

Sphaeriidae pea shell mussels; pea shells; fingernail clams; pill clams

Thiaridae Viviparidae e.g. Notopala kingi; Notopala sublineata river snails

Other invertebrate groups

Family Common name

Dugesiidae flatworms

Olindiidae e.g. Craspedacusta sowerbyi freshwater jellyfish

Spongillidae freshwater sponges

(Annelida) Oligochaeta freshwater worms


Table B4: Weed species that can impact the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. Source: Clayton et al. (2006). Scientific names are current as at 2013.

Aquatic and semi-aquatic weed species

Scientific name common name

Cyperus involucratus papyrus sedge, flat sedge, nut sedge, umbrella sedge

Egeria densa dense waterweed

Eichhornia crassipes water hyacinth

Elodia canadiensis dense pond weed

Hymenachne amplexicaulis hymenachne

Nymphaea caerulea zanzibarensis Cape waterlily

Persicaria spp. knotweed

Salvinia molesta salvinia

Urochloa mutica paragrass

Other weed species (e.g. Riparian)

Scientific Name Common Name

Anredera cordifolia Madeira vine

Cardiospermum spp. (e.g. C. Halicacabum) balloon vine

Celtis sinensis Chinese elm

Cinnamomum camphora camphor laurel

Cryptostegia grandiflora rubber vine

Gleditsia triacanthos Honey Locust

Ligustrum lucidum large-leaved privet

Macfadyena unguis-cati. cat’s claw creeper

Panicum maximum green panic

Phyla canescens lippia

Ricinus communis castor oil bush

Salix babylonica weeping willow


Table B5: Pest fauna that can impact the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. Sources: Clayton et al. (2006); Kind and Brooks (2003).

Scientific names are as at February 2013.

Scientific Name Common Name Note / details of impacts

Amniataba percoids barred/banded grunter Illegally translocated native fish.

Bidyanus bidyanus silver perch Translocated legally, stocked native fish.

Bos spp. cattle They tend to stay localised, eat vegetation and trample, causing degradation to wetlands and nutrification of water through defecation.

Cacatua sanguinea little corella Roost and nest in riverine trees displacing native species of birds.

Canis familiaris dog Prey on native fauna.

Carassius auratus goldfish Exotic fish species.

Cervus elaphus red deer Eat vegetation, trample and strip bark off plants causing degradation to wetlands.

Cherax quadricarinatus redclaw crayfish Many present in dams. As the redclaw aquaculture industry is established now, there are incidental releases across the state.

Felis catus cat Prey on native fauna.

Gambusia holbrooki eastern gambusia Exotic fish species.

Hephaestus fuliginosus sooty grunter Translocated native species. Records for Mary River above the barrage.

Maccullochella peelii peelii Murray cod Translocated legally, stocked native fish.

Macquaria ambigua golden perch, yellowbelly Translocated legally, stocked native fish.

Oreochromis mossambicus Mozambique tilapia Exotic fish species.

Oryctolagus cuniculus rabbit

Oxyeleotris lineolata sleepy cod Illegally translocated native fish.

Poecilia latipinna sailfin molly Exotic fish species.

Poecilia reticulatus guppy Exotic fish species.

Rhinella marina cane toad Poisonous to native predators e.g. snakes.

Scleropages leichardti southern saratoga Translocated native species.

Sturnus tristis common myna Increasing in numbers rapidly. Will nest in riparian trees. Emerging threat to native species.

Sus scrofa feral pig

Vulpes vulpes fox Prey on native fauna.

Xiphophorus helleri swordtail Exotic fish species, aggressive.

Xiphophorus maculatus platy Exotic fish species, could spread disease.


Appendix C: Detailed description of biology and ecological processes

The relationships between species within the ecological community are important for maintaining ecosystem function. The macrophytes (plants) of the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community are an essential resource for many animals. The plants also provide shelter, breeding, spawning and nesting sites for animals.

The large, long, branching river systems, including long floodplain* sequences and large river catchments that form the ecological community, offer greater habitat complexity than smaller river catchments and more refugia during adverse conditions such as floods and drought. They also receive more light, nutrients and runoff than smaller river systems and have more riffle/ pool/bar habitat and connecting river reaches. Consequently, these larger, more complex systems sustain larger and more diverse populations of flora and fauna.

Hydrological connectivity, driven by flow, is central for maintaining a healthy functioning aquatic ecological community. These factors operate at a number of temporal and spatial scales and riverine biota have evolved with them (Humphreys et al., 2007).

Many species use flood conditions, such as increased flow velocities and water depths, to trigger particular behaviours, or transitions in their life cycle. Water flow during spates also generates a mosaic of in-stream habitats and connectivity. It provides a variety of conditions suitable for a wide range of species and is important for maintaining species diversity in streams (Townsend, 1989). In this way spates are a major factor in faunal composition and in the ecological processes in streams (Qld DERM, 2011).

Conversely, The reproductive success of other species, such as turtles, Ornithorhynchus anatinus (platypus), is harmed by flood conditions (including spates) during the breeding season as eggs and juveniles can be drowned or washed away (Qld DERM, 2011).

Vegetation dynamics

Emergent and submerged aquatic plants are functionally important in the ecological community because they provide: a substrate for algal growth; habitat and food for aquatic fauna; egg laying substrate for fish and invertebrates; and, food and nesting material for waterfowl. They also increase bed and bank stability, trap sediments, absorb nutrients and generate oxygen.

The cyclical uptake and release of carbon dioxide and oxygen during photosynthesis and respiration produce cyclic fluctuations in the concentrations of these gases and hence cyclic fluctuations in dissolved oxygen concentration and pH. Carbon fixed during photosynthesis may be released into the water column and subsequently utilised by bacteria and epiphytes. Aquatic plants further alter in-stream habitat by reducing water velocities, enhancing sediment deposition and influencing water temperatures.

Aquatic plants are utilised as shelter and habitat by aquatic microflora and fauna. Epiphytes 13

13 Epiphtye: A plant, such as a tropical orchid or a staghorn fern, that grows on another plant, but is not parasitic on it; instead they derive moisture and nutrients from the air, rain, insects and detritus.

utilise aquatic plants as substrates for attachment and growth. Epiphytic sub-communities associated with macrophytes are utilised as a food source by aquatic fauna such as insect larvae. Macroinvertebrates use aquatic plants as food and shelter. Native freshwater fishes and waterfowl may utilise aquatic macrophytes as food, cover and/or spawning and nesting sites. For example, adult lungfish avoid open water and utilise macrophytes within the ecological community for shelter. Cod also use large woody debris within the ecological community as


nesting sites and as resting sites from which to ambush prey (DSEWPAC, 2012a; DSEWPAC, 2012b).

Table C1 illustrates the functional range of flora species in the ecological community. It lists some priority flora species identified within the Burnett Catchment (by an Aquatic Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Method (AquaBAMM) Aquatic and Riparian Flora Expert Panel) along with their significant values.

Table C1: Identified priority flora species and their significant values within the Burnett Catchment. Source: Clayton et al. (2006).

Scientific Name Habit Panel’s Comments & Values

Bacopa monnieri Aquatic B. monnieri is a major stabilisation feature of stream banks and at the water’s edge through its soil-binding properties. It can form large macrophyte beds that spread out into the water.

Chara spp. Aquatic Chara spp. combine with algae to form large macrophyte beds, even in deep water (>2m). It is also an important crayfish food source.

Hydrilla verticillata

Aquatic Habitat for fish.

Lomandra hystrix Riparian Lomandra is an important species for stream bank stability and provides habitat for terrestrial species.

Ludwigia peploides subsp. montevidensis

Aquatic Ludwigia is a major stabilisation feature of stream banks and at the water’s edge. It can form large beds that spread out into the water.

Marsilea drummondii, M. Hirsuta and M. mutica

Semi-aquatic

Marsilea spp. provide bank stability and retain surface moisture in wetlands during dry periods. They provide habitat for amphibians and microinvertebrates.

Nitella spp. Aquatic Nitella spp. combine with algae to form large macrophyte beds, even in deep water. They are also important crayfish food.

Nymphaea gigantea var. gigantea

Aquatic This waterlily is important habitat for waterbirds, snails and other aquatic fauna.

Triglochin procera

Aquatic This species can form large beds and floating mats of stems. It is important food and habitat for waterbirds, fish and snails.

Vallisneria nana Aquatic A common macrophyte, V. nana regularly forms large beds and is always found in sandy substrate/bed sections. It is a critical food resource and habitat for Lungfish and is the basis for complex food webs and ecosystems. This plant is the most crucial priority species for in-stream diversity and food webs in the Burnett Catchment.


Both macrophytes and algae can indicate the health of the ecological community. Vallisneria spp. (ribbon weed) are considered an indicator of good water quality and are known to be a nursery habitat for juvenile bass and a foraging habitat for adult bass (Harris, 1988 in NSW DECC, 2009a). The types of aquatic plants and the density of species found in the ecological community are influenced by a number of factors such as temperature, light availability, salinity, water flow and nutrient concentration. For this reason, there is often variation in aquatic plant growth within and between seasons. Prolific growth is often experienced in late spring and during summer.

Despite their fundamental importance to aquatic ecosystems, relatively little research has been directed towards aquatic macrophytes, especially in riverine environments. Consequently, little is known of the ecological and life history requirements of many species. Very few comprehensive aquatic flora surveys have been conducted in Australian freshwater systems.

Interaction with riparian vegetation

Riparian vegetation is the plant communities adjacent to and affected by surfacewater or groundwater of perennial or ephemeral water bodies. This includes vegetation found next to rivers, streams, lakes, ponds, drainage ways, or on floodplains. Riparian species may be reliant on a water body for part or all their life cycle.

Although riparian vegetation is not included in the aquatic ecological community, it provides essential ecosystem services. Riparian vegetation regulates in-stream primary production through shading (reduced light and water temperature); supplies energy and nutrients (in the form of litter, fruits, terrestrial arthropods and other organic matter) essential to aquatic organisms; and provides essential aquatic habitat by way of large pieces of wood that fall into the stream and through root-protection of undercut banks (Lovett and Price, 2007).

Riparian vegetation is also essential habitat for amphibious species from the ecological community such as frogs, lizards and turtles that use it for shelter, foraging and breeding during different parts of the day or different seasons. For example, the eastern water dragon often perches in branches overhanging the river at night and will launch into the water to escape predators.

Faunal roles and interactions

The various structural parts of the ecological community provide habitat for different fauna. Invertebrate species and fish species such as Gobiomorphus coxii (Cox's gudgeon) rely on the presence of fast flowing riffles in the ecological community for feeding. Many pelagic species such as Retropinna semoni (Australian smelt) usually live in pools and slow flowing parts of the stream but can move up to riffles to feed and often occur in the riffle tail waters where drifting invertebrates provide food. The Mary River turtle (Elusor macrurus) is dependent on pools for adult habitat, riffles for juvenile habitat associated with their macroinvertebrate diet, and sand bars for nesting habitat (Flakus and Connell, 2008). The boundary between riffles and pools is exploited by many species of predatory fish including cod, emphasising the importance of the connections between riffles and pools (DEWHA, 2009). Tandanus tandanus (Eel-tailed catfish) constructs its nests in the pools and slower flowing areas of the ecological community. Rapid changes in the flow regime can cause fish to abandon their nests due to exposure of shallow nests and/or flooding destruction of deeper nests (Qld DNRM, 2012).


Rivers and their adjacent riparian zones are ecosystems closely linked by flows of materials and the movements of organisms. Figure C1 shows the reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey and inputs of plant material that have direct and indirect effects in stream and riparian food webs and illustrates the complexity of faunal interactions in the ecological community. The river not only receives organic and inorganic materials like nutrients, leaves, and woody debris, but also insects that may fall in and get eaten by fish; adult aquatic insects, in turn emerge and feed riparian consumers like birds, bats and spiders (Baxter et al., 2005).

Figure C1: Reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link the stream and riparian food webs. Source: Illustration by Jeremy Monroe, in Baxter et al. (2005).

Fish perform a number of important ecological functions in freshwater ecosystems (Gehrke, 2000 in Morris et al., 2001). Morris et al. (2001) summarises some of these functions as follows. They occupy trophic levels from herbivores and detritivores through to carnivores at the top of the food chain. Fish prey on each other, and on other animals and plants, and in turn may provide prey for other species such as bats and raptors. Fish have a role in maintaining water quality through top-down control, as planktivorous fish may graze zooplankton to low levels, which in turn may allow phytoplankton populations to grow rapidly and cause algal blooms. If carnivorous fish are present and feed on smaller planktivorous fish, they are able to control their numbers, maintaining zooplankton at sufficient densities to prevent algal blooms from developing. The interactions that determine food chain processes can be quite complex and are strongly influenced by nutrient availability and other environmental conditions (Gehrke and Harris, 1994 in Morris et al., 2001).

An increase in available food types in east coast lowland river reaches, compared to upstream areas of the same rivers, results in an increase in trophic levels in fish populations (Gehrke, 1997) and highlights the important functional role the ecological community has in the broader riverine landscape. Migratory fish also play a role in transporting carbon and energy upstream in rivers, which partially counteracts the movement of nutrients, materials and other organisms downstream (Morris et al., 2001).


Sand, or gravel bars are an important structural component of the ecological community and provide nesting sites for turtles, as well as several bird species including Elseyornis melanops (black-fronted dotterels) and Vanellus miles (masked lapwing) (Morris et al., 2001; DEWHA, 2009). Raptors such as Haliaeetus leucogaster (white bellied sea eagle), Falco cenchroides (Nankeen kestrel) and Pandion cristatus (eastern osprey) hunt for fish in the rivers.


Appendix D: Detailed description of national context

National and state listed threatened species

Flora

The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community may provide habitat for three aquatic plant species that are listed as rare or threatened under the Queensland Nature Conservation Act 1992 and/or the NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995 (shown in Table D1). There are also a number of rare and threatened riparian plants, such as Cupaniopsis shirleyana and Melaleuca cheelii listed as Rare and Vulnerable, respectively, in Queensland.

Table D1: State listed threatened aquatic flora species of the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community.

Scientific names are current as at December 2012.

Scientific name Common name Conservation status

EPBC Act NSW QLD Aponogeton elongatus Queensland lace Rare Aponogeton queenslandicus an aquatic plant Endangered Rare

Brasenia schreberi water shield Rare

Fauna

Seven nationally listed threatened animal species are part of, or might be associated with, the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community in some areas: Maccullochella ikei (eastern freshwater / Clarence River cod), Maccullochella peelii mariensis (Mary River cod), Nannoperca oxleyana (oxleyan pygmy perch), Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian lungfish), Pseudomugil mellis (honey blue-eye), Mixophyes iteratus (giant barred frog), and Elusor macrurus (Mary River turtle), along with eleven or more species listed at a state level only (shown in Table D2).


Table D2: Listed threatened fauna species which may occur (or may have previously occurred) in the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community. The following is an indicative rather than comprehensive list of threatened fauna present in the ecological community. Scientific names are current as at December 2012. * Species may forage along watercourses.


EPBC NSW Qld Mammals Chalinolobus nigrogriseus*

hoary wattled bat Vulnerable

Birds Anseranas semipalmata magpie goose Vulnerable Ephippiorhynchus asiaticus

black-necked stork Endangered

Grus rubicunda brolga Vulnerable Irediparra gallinacea comb-crested jacana Vulnerable Oxyura australis blue-billed duck Vulnerable Pandion cristatus eastern osprey Vulnerable Stictonetta naevosa freckled duck Vulnerable Tyto longimembris masked owl Vulnerable Reptiles Elusor macrurus Mary River turtle Endangered Endangered Fish


EPBC NSW Qld

Maccullochella ikei eastern freshwater / Clarence River cod Endangered Endangered

Maccullochella mariensis Mary River cod Endangered

Nannoperca oxleyana oxleyan pygmy perch

Endangered Endangered Vulnerable

Neoceratodus forsteri Australian lungfish Vulnerable *See below *Not listed, but protected under the Queensland Fish and Oyster Act 1914 and protected from fishing - Collection requires a permit under the Queensland Fisheries Act 1994. Frogs

Adelotus brevis tusked frog Endangered population

to the south Vulnerable

Mixophyes iteratus giant barred frog Endangered Endangered Endangered Invertebrates Petalura gigantea giant dragonfly Endangered

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=64389�






http://www.iucnredlist.org/details/520/0�

http://www.edgeofexistence.org/amphibians/species_info.php?id=1370�

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/tscategories.htm�

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspecies/tscategories.htm�

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/threatenedspeciesapp/profile.aspx?id=10032�



Threatened ecological communities recognised under state jurisdiction

No ecological communities, or Regional Ecosystems (REs) in Queensland, directly relate to the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. However, a number of vegetation-based listed ecological communities, or REs, may occur adjacent to the Long subtropical lowland rivers (listed under the Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999; or NSW Threatened Species Conservation Act 1995). These include but are not limited to:

Queensland:

• 12.3.1 – Gallery rainforest (notophyll vineforest) on alluvial plains – Endangered

• 12.3.2 – Eucalyptus grandis tall open forest on alluvial plains – Of concern

• 12.3.3 – Eucalyptus tereticornis woodland to open forest on alluvial plains – Endangered

• 12.3.7 – Eucalyptus tereticornis, Callistemon viminalis, Casuarina cunninghamiana fringing forest – Not of concern

• 12.3.11 – Eucalyptus siderophloia, E. tereticornis, Corymbia intermedia open forest on alluvial plains usually near coast – Of concern

• 12.3.14 – Banksia aemula woodland on alluvial plains usually near coast – Of concern

New South Wales:

• Carex Sedgeland of the New England Tableland, Nandewar, Brigalow Belt South and NSW North Coast Bioregions – Endangered

• Freshwater Wetlands on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions – Endangered

• Lowland Rainforest in the NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions – Critically Endangered [included in the nationally-listed Lowland Rainforest of Subtropical Australia under the EPBC Act]

• Subtropical Coastal Floodplain Forest of the New South Wales North Coast Bioregion – Endangered

• Swamp Oak Floodplain Forest of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions – Endangered

• Swamp Sclerophyll Forest on Coastal Floodplains of the New South Wales North Coast, Sydney Basin and South East Corner Bioregions – Endangered

• White Gum Moist Forest in the NSW North Coast Bioregion – Endangered Other state vegetation protection

Native vegetation in Queensland and NSW, generally, is protected and managed through the Queensland Vegetation Management Act 1999 and NSW Native Vegetation Act 2003. Riparian vegetation is subject to particular requirements under this legislation to mitigate impacts on rivers.


Water law

There are laws that govern the regulation of waterways, for example the Queensland Water Act 2000 and the NSW Water Management Act 2000. Please refer to the relevant state agency’s websites for further information on this legislation and other policy documents.

EPBC key threatening processes

A number of nationally listed key threatening processes impact on the ecological community. They include: • Land clearance • Loss and degradation of native plant and animal habitat by invasion of escaped garden

plants, including aquatic plants • Predation, Habitat Degradation, Competition and Disease Transmission by Feral Pigs

Please refer to the Department of the Environment’s website for further details.


Appendix E: Detailed description of threats

The main threats to the ecological community are:

Regulation, infrastructure and modification of flow

Impoundments (dams, weirs, levees, barrages) and road crossings Dams, weirs, barrages, banks, levees and other regulating structures alter rivers and impact on aquatic habitat, including this ecological community, in a number of ways; including: • inundation of flowing river habitat • modification of flow regimes • alteration of sediment dynamics • creation of physical barriers, limiting the movement of fish and other fauna • disconnection from the floodplain

The major storage on the Kolan River is the Fred Haigh Dam; other water storage facilities supplied with water from the river include Bucca Weir and the Kolan Barrage. The Mary River system has 11 water storages (four dams, five weirs and two barrages); and there are25 water storages in the Burnett catchment, six of which are situated in the main river channel (Brigza et al., 2000). The raising of the Walla Weir on the Burnett River in conjunction with the construction of the Burnett River Dam may significantly reduce suitable habitats for aquatic fauna, particularly for lungfish and turtles. The Brisbane River has 34 water storage facilities, the largest being the Wivenhoe and Somerset reservoirs; and the Logan-Albert river system has two large dams (Maroon and Wyaralong) and three weirs.

In New South Wales, the Richmond River has three water storages. Most of the rivers and creeks in the Clarence River basin are unregulated, with no major storages to capture and control flows. Most water supply use relies on natural flows or small structures, such as weirs.

Inundation

Impoundments and the inundation they cause results in the permanent loss of river habitat; replacing it with artificial, lentic habitat favouring some species over others. It is often argued that the loss of riverine habitat associated with impoundments is balanced by the creation of lake habitat. However, natural lakes and wetlands often function in a very different way to river storages. In lakes and wetlands, much of the carbon and nutrient fluxes occur in the littoral margins (Bunn and Boon, 1993; Wetzel, 1990). Large impoundments are generally not operated at a constant water level and productive littoral areas are rarely sustained. In addition, water levels are usually significantly elevated above natural stream levels, flooding part of the terrestrial-aquatic interface and creating a new littoral zone with steeper banks, less complex aquatic habitat and different physico-chemical conditions for aquatic plants and animals (Walker et al., 1992). For example whilst Neoceratodus forsteri (Australian lungfish) grow well in impounded waters (Brooks and Kind, 2002 in DSEWPAC, 2012a), their spawning behaviour is not suited to irrigation impoundments. Lungfish spawn in macrophyte beds in runs and glides and at the shallow edges of pools during spring, when there is generally a stable base flow. Fluctuating water levels in steep sided dams preclude the development of macrophyte beds suitable for lungfish spawning. Because lungfish spawn in shallow waters, this puts their eggs at risk of stranding or desiccation if there is any drawdown in water level.


Riffles, rapids and cascade habitats are important for oxygenating water in rivers. They are habitat for macroinvertebrate species, which are in turn prey for various fish and turtle species. Inundation of riffle habitat can impact on Anguilla reinhardtii (long-finned eels), juvenile Maccullochella (cod), Craterocephalus marjoriae (Marjorie’s hardyhead), Australian smelt (Retropinna semoni), juvenile Tandanus tandanus (freshwater catfish), Myxus petardi (freshwater mullet) and Kuhlia rupestris (jungle perch).

Flow modification

Modifications of natural flow regime have complex impacts. It is often the low to medium flows that are lost following river regulation (rather than high flow events) that can impact the most on fish migration (Broadfoot et al., 2000). During low flow periods, the amount of water released from a dam can be below the critical level required for some riffles. This can lead to the proliferation of macrophytes and aquatic weeds and to declines in water quality. Some dams release water on a more or less continuous basis, which, while potentially benefiting at least some elements of the ecological community, ultimately results in a loss of natural integrity by reducing the natural variability of the system. The timing of releases is also critical in some cases. Where releases occur ‘out of synch’ with seasonal flow variability, this can affect the cues for movement or spawning of some species in the ecological community which may disrupt their recruitment (DEWHA, 2009). Regulated rivers also have an increased rate of change in water levels causing rapid alterations in the amount of available habitat. This can be deleterious to many species; for example rapid closure of valves can result in fish being trapped or stranded either within the channel or on floodplains (Bishop and Bell, 1978 - in Wager and Jackson, 1993).

Sediment dynamics

Large dams often have high sediment trapping efficiencies, reducing the amount of coarse sediment that enters downstream reaches, starving sections of the stream of larger substrate particles which assist in the formation of riffles. Sediment trapping can also result in clear water scouring immediately downstream, resulting in bed armouring. Large dams also reduce peak flows during flood events, thereby reducing the effectiveness of natural channel and bed forming processes that maintain pool habitat and snag supply.

Physical barriers

Many of Australia’s native aquatic organisms such as fish, platypus, turtles, water rats, crustaceans (i.e. crayfish, shrimp, etc.) and some frog species undertake migrations/ movements for a range of reasons:

• to access new habitats or established spawning areas • to search for food • to avoid predators • to defend their territory for part of their breeding cycle • for juvenile recruitment to habitat areas.

Turtles migrate across land from ephemeral ponds to more permanent water bodies during dry seasons and droughts. Recent studies indicate that cloacal breathing species such as Elseya albagula (Burnett River snapping turtle) and Elusor macrurus (Mary River turtle) migrate to mass-nesting sites on alluvial banks within the main river and occasionally in major tributaries.

Whilst some river catchments contain natural barriers such as waterfalls, large numbers of artificial barriers to faunal movement have been created by humans to use, manage or cross


rivers. These artificial barriers restrict river connectivity and limit movement between different reaches (Stockwell et al., 2008). Blockage to the passage of aquatic organisms has been identified as a major threatening processes affecting aquatic biodiversity and in-stream habitats. Its cumulative effect can result in local extinctions or significant reductions in the abundance and diversity of aquatic organisms, particularly fish.

Restrictions to ‘biopassage’ not only include constructed barriers; physiological or behavioural barriers, such as water temperature, low oxygen, and pH, also restrict movement within aquatic systems. It only takes small changes to create barriers. A drop of just ten centimetres can block fish passage. Similarly the high velocity of water through a pipe or narrow channel can prevent movement of species upstream (Stockwell et al., 2008).

The impacts of barriers to biopassage include:

• restricting migration of fish for spawning

• reducing dispersal of juvenile fish and other small organisms

• creating isolated populations and reduce gene flow between populations

• limiting passage between feeding grounds

• causing fish to congregate at a barrier leaving them open to disease or predators

• causing animals, such as platypus and turtles to cross roadways leaving them vulnerable to predation and road-kill

• creating unsuitable living or breeding conditions

• causing local extinction of upstream or downstream migrating species, and

• altering species diversity because of the local disappearance of some species and changes to the abundance of remaining species.

Examples of physical barriers within the ecological community include Teddington Weir in the Mary River catchment. It acts as a barrier to fish movement, cutting off a major Maccullochella mariensis (Mary River cod) population from populations elsewhere in the catchment (Simpson and Jackson, 1996). Stockwell et al. (2008) reported that although there is a European-designed fish ladder, very few native fish can navigate through it.

Weirs and barrages low down in a catchment can deny access to the ecological community by diadromous14

Whilst some major barriers have been addressed in the main stream of the Kolan, Burnett, and Mary river systems, many barriers remain (Stockwell et al., 2004) including the Paradise Dam which was constructed on the Burnett River in 2010.

and estuarine species that use freshwater habitats. This can lead to substantial reductions in species richness (up to 50%) and local extinctions. For example, Myxus petardi (freshwater mullet) (a prey species for cod) appear to have been lost from the Kolan and Burnett systems. The Burnett River has 60% of its channel impounded, with the remaining 40% of flowing stream habitat fragmented into six sections, some as short as 7km (Clayton et al., 2006).

Bunn and Arthington (2002) report that in-stream barriers have contributed to the decline of populations of migratory fish species in southern Australia, such as Macquaria novemaculeata (Australian bass), and Macquaria ambigua (golden perch) (Lake and Marchant, 1990; Barmuta 14 Diadromous: Species, such as fish, that have essential migrations between fresh and salt water.


et al., 1992). Barriers have affected between 30–50% of the potential habitat for migratory fish in 22 coastal drainages in south eastern Australia (Harris, 1984a). Less than 10% of these barriers had fish-ways and, of these, only 6 of the 29 provided suitable conditions for native fish migration when surveyed (Harris, 1984b).

River impoundment and blocking fish passage are often followed by the disappearance or decline of the major migratory species in river reaches upstream of barriers; this has been observed for Australian bass in east coast river systems (Harris,1984a; 1984b). It is important to note that the impact of barriers on mobile organisms is not confined to very large structures. Even small in-stream barriers, such as v-notch gauging weirs, can impede the movement of fish (Pusey et al., 1989).

Dams can cause direct mortality and/or injury of cod, lungfish and turtles either through being passed through a spillway or over a dam wall. There is significant evidence of these impacts in rivers such as the Burnett, where more than 700 fish from 15 species, including 152 Lungfish, were killed in a 22 day period passing through or over the Paradise dam spillway. As well as lungfish, the most abundant large bodied fish species to suffer mortality were Nematalosa erebi (bony herring), Anguilla reinhardtii (long-finned eel), Tandanus tandanus (freshwater catfish) and Macquaria ambigua (golden perch). Larger fish exhibited injuries consisting of abrasions, descaling and head damage including decapitation or loss of eyes (Qld DEEDI, 2012). Fish mortalities over the Paradise Dam stepped spillway are occurring in all flows, regardless of flow condition. The cumulative effect of these mortalities is likely to have a major impact on populations of fish over the longer term.

Barriers can also prevent relocation following displacement caused by floods. For example, any significant sized lungfish, cod, or turtles swept over barrages during a flood are not able to return to the freshwater section of the river (i.e. they are lost to the ecological community).

Disconnection from the floodplain

Lowland rivers, in their intact state, regularly flood their floodplains. The frequency and magnitude of flooding, particularly of intermediate/medium level flooding, are altered by dams and other flood control and water resources infrastructure.

When floodplains are flooded, there is a boom of primary production (bacteria, phytoplankton, macrophytes, tree growth) followed by a pulse of secondary production both of aquatic fauna (zooplankton, macroinvertebrates, fish) and semi-aquatic terrestrial fauna (e.g. birds, amphibians and reptiles). High primary production is fuelled by nutrients coming in with the flood but also by nutrients and organic carbon released from the floodplain (Baldwin and Mitchell, 2000). Flooded intact floodplains are one of the most productive types of ecosystems in the world. In floodplain rivers floods are regenerative or restorative disturbances, notwithstanding some disruptions of the terrestrial biota (Lake et al., 2006).

Floods may stimulate and maintain in-channel production in unregulated rivers. As floods recede, some fauna (e.g. zooplankton, benthos and fish) may move into the channel, adding biomass produced on the floodplain and complementing food-web dynamics (Tockner et al., 2000). Also as floods ebb floodplain water carrying high levels of nutrients, dissolved organic carbon (DOC) and particulate organic carbon (POC; e.g. litter, leaves) recedes from the floodplain into the channel (Robertson et al., 1999). This fuels production in the short term (e.g. DOC) and in the medium term (e.g. POC). These inputs into the river from the floodplain may be critical to river-channel production and to trophic structure. With regular flooding these inputs may help to maintain river production between floods.


Abstraction of water

Water abstraction includes both surface water and groundwater abstraction. Impacts associated with excessive surface water abstraction are likely to be broadly similar to those from reduced volume releases from impoundments during low flow periods (DEWHA, 2009).

In the Mary River, water abstraction in the upper catchment, combined with a natural low flow period, is suspected to have contributed to the observed exposure and deterioration of riffle habitat (QWI, 2007 in DEWHA, 2009). Groundwater extraction may expose hyporheic fauna to the effects of increased surface water down-welling (Hancock, 2002). In smaller streams flow reduction may be caused by water abstraction, or by water storage in farm dams; these effects may be most detrimental to stream ecology during periods of low rainfall (Wager and Jackson, 1993).

Geomorphic alteration of the river channel, of the riparian zone and within the catchment area

Flow constantly re-shapes the profile of river channels, scouring sediment from some parts of the bed at high flows and depositing it further downstream when flow subsides. In-channel erosion and deposition is a natural process in river geomorphology, as is the introduction of sediment from catchment-wide erosion. Under natural flow and erosion regimes most rivers are able to tolerate the range of erosion that occurs in their catchment.

When riparian areas are cleared, the silt and sediment load of a river can increase after rainfall. Silt can increase turbidity, smother aquatic plants and habitat, reduce the dissolved oxygen concentration and make conditions unsuitable for fish (Pusey and Arthington, 2003); also for turtles and other species. Increased sediment can also smother river habitat, filling pools and smothering riffles and impairing hyporheic exchange (Hancock et al., 2001; Boulton et al., 2002).

Loss of riparian vegetation also reduces the availability of undercut root banks. Bank undercuts provide breeding site for Mixophyes iterateus (giant barred frog), which throw their eggs onto the roof of the undercut. Undercuts are also believed to provide important shelter for juvenile cod, turtles and lungfish. Clearing riparian vegetation and bank slumping can destroy these undercuts.

The majority of natural creeks, rivers and waterways in the Richmond catchment have been straightened; the creation of so many man-made drainage channels has considerably reduced the residence time of floodwaters on the land (Dawson, 2002).

Removal of material

Removal of riparian vegetation results in:

• loss of food for fish and turtles (such as insects and fruits)

• loss of vegetation inputs (such as leaf litter) to the aquatic food chain;

• loss of cover and shaded habitat and resultant temperature effects in the river and loss of woody material inputs (logs, twigs etc) which are important for habitat.

Associated impacts of riparian clearing also include increases in algal and macrophyte growth (due to increased light availability), potential fish egg and larvae mortality due to increased ultraviolet B radiation (Pusey and Arthington, 2003) and an increase in the amount of nutrients


entering the river via surface runoff and subsurface flow (Naiman et al., 2005; Hunter et al., 2006).

Much of the Lower Clarence floodplain has been cleared and it is estimated that the majority of the Clarence catchment has between 20 and 50% of the stream length cleared of native riparian vegetation. A very high proportion of the Clarence coastal floodplain has been cleared for pasture and sugar cane, with only 4% of the floodplain remaining as wetland or forest (Rose, 2008).

The floodplain vegetation in the lower Richmond has changed from wetland, native grasses and riparian vegetation, to pasture grasses, such as kykuyu, paspalum and couch, and sugar cane fields; with a reduction of wetlands from 20% to 6% of the catchment (from 1 300 to 278 km2) (Dawson, 2002).

Removal of substrate (sand and gravel extraction and dredging) results in:

• mobilization of sediment and nutrient

• direct destruction of benthic habitat

• disruption of lower flow areas downstream that may be important for spawning and feeding during flood time.

Sand and gravel extraction potentially changes the energy dynamics of rivers, creating bed instability in areas both downstream and upstream of extraction points. When the removal of sand and gravel from a section of river exceeds the amount it receives from upstream, the river will erode either its bed, or its banks, or both. Gravel extraction leads to an increased amount of suspended fine sediments in the river channel, which can smother downstream habitats and surfaces contribute to declining dissolved oxygen concentrations and separate the stream channel from the aquifer (NSW Government, 1992).

Sand and gravel extraction occurs in the main channel of the Mary River upstream of Moy Pocket and at Traveston Crossing. This increase the erosive potential of the Mary River, and overflow from siltation ponds during high flows could send pulses of silt downstream, smothering downstream riverine and estuarine habitats (Pickersgill, 2008). Removing gravel bars, above low flow water level, can significantly affect fish spawning and feeding areas during high flows. The excessive volume of sand and gravel extracted from the Mary River during the 1970s and 80s lead to significant local habitat depletion (Stockwell et al., 2004).

Riparian zones can be damaged by extraction activities, further reducing the availability of woody debris and other organic matter to the river (NSW Government, 1992). Erosion may also occur upstream of excavation because the riverbed has become steeper, or downstream because of loss of sediment movement. The potential for increased riverbed and bank erosion is especially important in rivers where there are a number of excavation sites (NSW Government, 1992).

Sand and gravel extraction, by dredging the Brisbane River has been stopped. Between the early 20th century and the mid-1980s over 26 million cubic metres of sand and gravel were removed; in 1996 60% of all sand for the south east Queensland construction industry came from the Brisbane River. The erosion of riverbanks and deepening of the river led to the conversion of what was once a short saltwater estuary to a tidal estuary over 60 km long and salt-water mangroves once confined to Hamilton Reach have appeared as far upstream as Goodna. (Griffith, 1996).


De-snagging results in:

• loss of low velocity refuges during high flows

• loss of ambush sites for predaceous fish, loss of spawning sites (including cod)

• reduction in formation of biofilms. As solid structures, logs alter localised flow patterns, encouraging scouring and sediment deposition. So the loss of riparian contributions of large woody debris is likely to result in the reduction of in-stream habitat complexity and of pool-riffle sequence (Brooks and Brierley, 2001).

Introduced / problem species

Problem species include:

• alien / exotic (invasive or introduced) non-native species that can cause harm to an ecosystem or its constituents

• translocated native species that can destabilise the ecosystem into which they are introduced

• species under domestication or cultivation. Problem species are generally hardy and opportunistic and can have a broad range of impacts. For example they can: prey on the local residents; compete for food and habitat; disrupt breeding and introduce disease and parasites (Kennard, 2003). Some are potential 'ecosystem engineers’ causing significant environmental change which alters the composition and abundance of native plants and animal communities. Tables B5 and B6 (in Appendix B) give details of introduced exotic and translocated problem species of flora and fauna within the ecological community.

A number of categories of introduced species are considered below: aquatic and riparian weeds; introduced native fish species; exotic fish species; ungulate mammals; and, other introduced species.

Aquatic and riparian weeds

A number of river systems containing the ecological community are exposed to aquatic weed infestation; this reduces the area of open water habitat and contributes to the loss of organisms living in the sediment, which are important to the overall foodweb in the river. Weeds can also cause a decline in quality of the breeding ground of fauna, such as the lungfish and reduce access to turtle’s nesting banks.

Stockwell et al. (2004) report that most major aquatic weed problems in Australia are generated as a result of:

• invasion of plant species that are alien to the affected system and that have characteristics and other benefits which give them a distinct competitive advantage over native plants

• stabilisation of water regime in a system that is inherently variable

• nutrient enrichment of waters suitable for aquatic plant growth.

These factors are associated with the major weed outbreaks in the waterways of the ecological community.


Common weed species infesting the ecological community range from introduced pasture species, such as paragrass (Urochloa mutica) and hymenachne (Hymenachne amplexicaulis) - to floating species such as water hyacinth (Eichhornia crassipes) and salvinia (Salvinia molesta); as well as submerged, rooted species such as dense pond weed (Elodia canadiensis) (Esslemont et al., 2006; DEWHA, 2009). The infestation of waterways by these weeds can choke sections of stream, reducing habitat connectivity for fauna such as the platypus and can result in sever hypoxia (through the breakdown of plant material) killing fish and invertebrates. Weed species may displace natives; for example, within the Burnett catchment, Nymphaea gigantea (giant waterlily) can often be replaced by an exotic species, the Cape waterlily (Nymphaea caerulea zanzibarensis).

Introduced vine weeds such as cats claw (Macfadyena unguis-cati) and Madeira vine (Anredera cordifolia) infest the canopy of native vegetation and can rapidly smother and kill mature trees; ultimately toppling them and creating gaps in the riparian corridor which leads to additional weed infestation (BSR Landcare Group, 2008 in Jacka et al., 2010).

Introduced native fish species

The effects of introduced native species on ecosystems are similar to the effects of introduced exotic species and can be more severe. These effects include: introduction of disease organisms, disturbance of ecosystems and loss of biogeograpic information. In addition introduction may result in the loss of genetic diversity when separate stocks of the same species are mixed (Wager and Jackson, 1993). Harris and Battaglene (1989) and TSSC (2011) provide more details on the effects of native species translocation.

The ecological effects of introduced exotic and native fishes were the subject of an Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop (see Pollard (1990)). The appearance of a translocated native fish species in a river system can herald the decline of local fish species; for example, the spread of sleepy cod (Oxyeleotris lineolatus) in the Burdekin River (just north of the range of the ecological community) appears to correlate with a decline in abundance of purple-spotted gudgeon (Mogurnda aspersa) and may be due to direct predation (Pusey et al., 2006).

Stocking fish for recreation can change population dynamics within the aquatic ecological community. It can also result in the introduction/translocation of pest species. For example Amniataba percoides (banded grunter) have probably been introduced into northern NSW and south east Queensland through the stocking of aquaculture farms and farm dams with contaminated shipments of fish. They have been discovered in shipments of fingerlings from interstate hatcheries located in areas where the fish is naturally found. Other species not native to NSW have also been found in the same shipments. Banded grunter are widespread in northern Australia where they are an important part of the native fish fauna. Their natural distribution extends north from the Burnett River; however they are considered a pest outside their natural range. They can withstand a wide range of temperatures and have established populations in south east Queensland and northern NSW (e.g. in the Brisbane and Clarence rivers). They are an aggressive species which breeds prolifically. Females produce up to 400,000 eggs, and they appear to spawn over a wide variety of different habitats


Exotic fish species

Exotic fish species have been implicated in the decline of native species; although it is difficult to distinguish this from the impacts of other threatening processes. Predation, utilisation of similar resources, aggressive behaviour, introduction of exotic pathogens and habitat modification have been suggested as detrimental factors associated with introduced exotic (and introduced native) species (Wager and Jackson, 1993).

The Mary and Burnett systems contain the largest variety of translocated and exotic species in the region (Stockwell et al., 2004). Tilapia (Oreochromis mossambicuss) recently invaded Boondooma Dam in the upper Burnett catchment. There is evidence that they are breeding in the Dam and they may spread downstream into other parts of the catchment. Tilapia can dominate the biomass in disturbed systems and are competitors of native fish species. A single carp (Cyprinus carpio) was captured by the Queensland government in the Mary River near Gympie. Other exotic fish species, recorded in the Burnett-Mary Region, include guppies, swordtails, platy and goldfish (all aquarium species).

Ungulate mammals (cattle and feral pigs)

Ungulate mammals (cattle and feral pigs) effect river banks and river beds and can increase nutrient loading in the water. Long stretches of the ecological community are unfenced. Where cattle are allowed access to the river, they can increase bank erosion, increase nutrient concentration and silt load in the river; and trample riffle and bar habitats (and on occasion turtles and turtle eggs) (QWI, 2007 in DEWHA, 2009). Feral pigs also eat a range of live native animals including amphipods, snails, frogs, lizards, snakes, turtles and their eggs (NSW DPI, 2012).

Other introduced species

Foxes, dogs and cats eat native fauna and their eggs. Predation reduces population levels and can result in local extinctions of wetland dependent frogs (Stockwell et al., 2004).


Other threats

Fishing and recreation The ecological community occurs in areas that are very popular for fishing. Both legal and illegal fishing (as well as boat movements associated with fishing or other recreational activities) can have an impact on fauna, such as cod, lungfish and turtles. Even species that cannot be caught legally may be accidentally captured. Handling to remove hooks can lead to increased mortality or injury, particularly in the case of cod and turtles.

Further impacts are likely to occur during the cod breeding season in summer. The stress of capture may cause female cod to resorb eggs they are carrying and the capture of males may lead to abandonment of the nest or predation of the eggs in the males’ absence.

Activities that concentrate fishing in a particular area may also increase accidental catch. Discarded fishing equipment such as hooks and line also poses a risk. Intentional killing of turtles, or illegal take of cod or lungfish also occur; the extent of these activities is unknown.

Boat movements, particularly at high speed, are a threat to both lungfish and turtles. Adult lungfish spend considerable time in open water unlike cod, which are typically in close proximity to large wood debris. Turtles are at greatest risk during their breeding seasons.

Catchment development, urbanisation and diffuse pollution

• Excessive removal of vegetation from the catchment area results in: siltation, erosion, increased runoff, decreased dissolved oxygen and fish kills.

• Fertilizer, manure, herbicides and pesticides contribute to the pollution of the aquatic systems; particularly when vegetation has been removed, or is not allowed to regrow on riparian areas (where it filters particulate and nutrient loads).

• Urbanisation results in: decreased infiltration and therefore greater and faster runoff volume; deposition of fine organic sediments which affects invertebrates and some fish species; chemical contamination from runoff (e.g. tyre dust containing zinc and other polluting metals toxic to fish).

Because river habitats have links to alluvial aquifers, they are also at risk of exposure to nutrient and pesticide pollution via groundwater flow paths (even where those chemicals have been applied some distance away from the waterway).

Urbanisation has downstream impacts on aquatic biological communities. Hogg and Norris (1991) found that deposition of fine inorganic sediments, following storm events below recent urban development, was a major cause of low invertebrate numbers. Increased sedimentation and siltation have contributed to the decline of fish species such as Macquaria novemaculeata (Australian bass); and can disrupt litter decomposition, inhibiting the build up of invertebrates and micro-organisms (Lake and Marchant, 1990). Diffuse and point source urban pollutants (often in association with some form of channelisation of urban watercourses) frequently leads to eutrophication and significant species decline (Stockwell et al., 2004).

The population of north coast NSW is estimated to increase 30% by 2030. Considering the existing pressures on the Richmond River Catchment from urbanisation and economic and agricultural activities, it is anticipated that pressure on water resources will escalate in future years (Ballina Shire Council, undated). South eastern Queensland has a rapidly growing population, predicted to grow from 2.8 million people to 4.4 million people by 2031 (Qld DIP, 2009).


Potential threats

Climate change

The following has been adapted from Kroon et al. (2012), which examines the effects of climate change on freshwater biodiversity in Queensland.

Current threats are likely to be compounded and possibly superseded by the effects of climate change. Freshwater aquatic ecosystems are altered by climate change via direct and indirect pathways. Direct pathways include:

• increased air temperature causing increased water temperature, longer stratification periods in reservoirs and lakes; as well as advances in spring events and delays in autumn events

• changes in precipitation and evaporation resulting in changes of hydrological cycles, river flow regimes, sediment and nutrient transport (for example the rivers of the ecological community are likely to experience a relative decrease in average annual runoff)

• sea level rise will result in inundation of coastal freshwater ecosystems, saltwater intrusion in coastal groundwater systems and upstream movement of the tidal influence

• increased CO2 absorption which may result in freshwater becoming more acidic and increases in phytoplankton productivity or decreases in, for example molluscs

Indirect pathways include:

• levels of dissolved oxygen decreasing due to increasing temperature, possibly decreasing wind speeds, and the expected increase in eutrophication* by nutrient enriched runoff

• increased intensity and probability in occurrence of extreme events (precipitation associated with floods, heatwaves, cyclones) will lead to irreversible changes in the physical environment of freshwater systems (form and structure, connectivity, water balance)

In combination with current threats to freshwater biodiversity, the main effects of climate change are:

• changes in species' behaviour and physiology due to changing environmental conditions

• changes in species' abundance, distribution and resilience to climate variability due to changes in habitat availability and connectivity

• changes in species' resistance, resilience and exposure to extreme events and diseases

• changes in annual ecosystem productivity and nutrient status due to changes in phenology15

Current threats to freshwater biodiversity need to be reduced in order to minimise the detrimental impacts of climate change.

15 Phenology: The influence of climate on the recurrence of annual events in animal and plant life such as budding and migrations.


Appendix F: Detailed assessment of eligibility for listing against the EPBC Act criteria This appendix presents a detailed analysis of the EPBC Act listing criteria with respect to the Long lowland rivers of south east Queensland and north east New South Wales ecological community.

The EPBC Act provides six criteria against which to assess whether an ecological community is eligible for listing. The guidelines for ecological community nominations (TSSC, 2010) give indicative qualitative and quantitative thresholds of decline or loss, against which an ecological community should be assessed, to determine its eligibility for listing as a threatened ecological community under the EPBC Act.

Measuring the decline in extent of riverine systems is difficult because the nature of decline often involves hydrological changes (or associated faunal behavioural changes) rather than outright loss of the entire aquatic system. Losses within the ecological community, instead may be considered to have occurred when the key representatives of the community have undergone an irreversible loss of integrity and function That is, when re-establishment of ecological processes, species composition and community structure, within the ecological community’s range of natural variability, is unlikely within the foreseeable future, even with positive human intervention.

A benchmark, or reference state (or series of states), may be used to assess when such loss has occurred. One measure of this may be when an ecological community no longer meets specified minimum condition thresholds; however no such thresholds were determined for this aquatic ecological community. The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community primarily comprises an assemblage of faunal species, many of which are mobile (within part of or throughout individual river systems of the ecological community e.g. migratory fish) and whose populations fluctuate significantly over time. Benchmark states and condition thresholds are difficult to apply in these circumstances; especially when limited and varied surveys mean that biodiversity is not consistently quantified across the ecological community over time.


Criterion 1 - Decline in geographic distribution

This criterion can refer to:

1) a decrease in the range over which the ecological community originally occurred; or

2) a decrease in the total extent of the ecological community (without necessarily a contraction in range); or

3) fragmentation of the ecological community as evident through a decrease in the cumulative extent but increase in the number and disconnectivity of occurrences.

For terrestrial vegetation communities the TSSC (2010) guidelines give indicative thresholds, of 70, 90 and 95 percent decline in extent (for the categories of vulnerable, endangered and critically endangered respectively).

Contraction in the range and extent of the ecological community

The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community is the assemblage of native species associated with the perennially flowing freshwater sections of seven long, lowland river systems along the east coast of subtropical Australia. The ecological community excludes the upland and estuarine portions of these river systems, as noted in its description.

The river and basin attributes summarised in Norris et al. (2001) provide total reach length and basin area for river systems across Australia. As all seven river systems are presented, the data was used to estimate an indicative extent for the ecological community.

The lowland portion of each river system was estimated to be approximately one third of the length of each river system. The area of the ecological community in each river system was calculated by multiplying the lowland river length by an estimate of average stream width of 15 metres (MRCCC, 2008). The calculations for each of the seven component river systems are presented in Table F1.

Table F1: Estimated length and area of the ecological community based on total reach length for each of the seven component river systems, and estimate that lowland represents a third of the total reach length, and an average stream width of 15 metres.

River system

Catch-ment Area (km2)

1/3 of Catchment Area (km2)

Total length of reaches

(km)

1/3 total length (km)

Area of reaches (km2)

1 Kolan 2911 970 356 119 1.8 2 Burnett 33 334 11 111 3480 1160 17.4 3 Mary 9411 3137 1089 363 5.4 4 Brisbane 13 583 4528 1468 489 7.3 5 Logan-Albert 4142 1381 478 159 2.4 6 Richmond 7031 2344 757 252 3.8 7 Clarence 22 283 7428 2573 858 12.9 TOTAL 92 695 30 898 10 201 3400 51.0

Source: Norris et al. (2001). The numbers 1 to 7 are arbitrary, but reflect the north to south order of the river systems.


From Table F1, it can be concluded that:

• The total reach length (upland, lowland plus estuarine portions) of perennial rivers for all seven river systems was estimated to be 10 201 km.

• The lowland river portion is estimated to be 3400 km in length.

• The estimated total area of the ecological community is 51 km2. This estimate includes the groundwater beneath the surface water (the hyporheic zone), but does not include the parafluvial zone16

Norris et al. (2001) also provide an estimate of the basin area of each river system. However, as this is for the whole catchment rather than just the river channels, it would greatly overestimate the indicative extent of the ecological community.

alongside it.

Where a significant artificial impoundment (such as behind a dam or barrage) has permanently inundated riverine reaches, these are considered a loss of the national ecological community. Similarly, canalised reaches (i.e. where the reach is modified through artificial embankments that alter the natural features of the system, as often occurs within town centres) also are considered to be a loss of the ecological community. As such, impoundment and canalised reaches are excluded from the ecological community as described here. These parts of the reaches are no longer in a natural condition and are unlikely to contain the same range of species that make up the flowing, riverine ecological community. Impoundments and canalisation lead to a loss of connectivity for aquatic fauna species by causing disjunction in home ranges, and in migratory patterns. The cumulative effect of barriers to aquatic movement can result in local extinctions or reductions in the abundance and diversity of some organisms.

Even where the river system has not been directly impacted by large impoundments, much of the ecological community has been disturbed in the past, for example by clearing riparian vegetation; or creating smaller in-stream barriers such as weirs that regulate or affect water flows. For the most part however, these disturbed reaches are not considered a total loss of the ecological community; they still provide habitat for certain aquatic species and there is potential to recover or rehabilitate the ecological community in these reaches (although considerable remediation effort may be required in some circumstances).

The Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee provided some estimates of the decline in extent and functionality of the ecological community for the Mary River catchment. These are shown in Table F1a, overleaf.

16 Parafluvial zone: The groundwater alongside the hyporheic zone, extending outwards beneath the entire active river channel – The Active river channel is the portion of the channel that is somewhat lower than bankfull, as in the following definition: “the portion of the channel commonly wetted during and above winter base flows. Identified by a break in rooted vegetation or moss growth on rocks along stream margins” (Taylor and Love, 2003). The ordinary high water mark is sometimes given as the elevation defining the active channel.


The proportion of the originally nominated ‘Riffle/Pool/Sandbank Community of the Mary River (Queensland) floodplain’ ecological community that has been directly impacted by impoundment was estimated to be 16%. The functional extent of the nominated ecological community that supports cod, turtle and lungfish populations was estimated to have declined by more than 65% since European settlement (MRCCCA, 2008). However, this figure is limited to the riffle pool and sandbank sequences in this single river system (the Mary River system). It may not apply to all the lowland river systems included in the national ecological community, since water regulation works and disturbances vary considerably amongst systems. However, information on condition (presented in more detail under Criterion 4, below) suggests that the Mary River is a system that is in moderate condition overall (Norris et al., 2001) despite the actual and functional loss due to barrages and impoundments (and perhaps median quality, in terms of conditions across the entire range of the ecological community).

Table F1a: Percentage losses of the nominated Mary River Floodplain Riffle/Pool/Sandbank ecological community. Source: MRCCC (2008).

Items from the original ecological community nomination Item length (km)

Length of Mary River reaches selected to represent the pre-European extent of the nominated ‘Riffle/Pool/Sandbank Community of the Mary River (Queensland) floodplain’ ecological community.

48717

Length of the above reaches that have not been directly impacted by impoundment

410

Therefore, the length (487 km – 410 km) that has been directly impacted by impoundment i.e. lost 77

Therefore, (77 km / 487 km x 100%) = the percentage lost 16 % The current extent of the nominated ecological community that supports cod, turtle and lungfish populations is estimated to be somewhat less than 170km.

170

Therefore (487 km – 317 km) = the length lost in km 317 Therefore (317 km / 487 km x 100%) = the percentage lost 65 % Fragmentation of the ecological community

Some riverine fauna (e.g. turtle species, Australian lungfish, Australian Bass and freshwater catfish, can utilise impounded areas as habitat. However, whilst impoundment and infrastructure barriers may not deter their presence, they can prevent their wider movement and breeding (and restrict genetic flows). This has implications for the longer-term resilience, sustainability and diversity of populations of these aquatic species.

The loss of connectivity may be a significant problem for some components of the ecological community. For example, 124 km of a major tributary of the Mary River is now separated from the main river by two tidal barrages that prevent freshwater species from travelling between the two rivers. They completely fragment the formerly interlinked populations, now in two unconnected watercourses. Similarly, the Paradise Dam on the Burnett River splits the lungfish

17 Note the figure of 487 km length in Table F1a is significantly greater than the estimated figure of 363 km (1089 km / 3) estimate for the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community in the Mary River catchment at Table F1.


population into separate parts. Fragmentation could be determined by measuring the river lengths outside of any impoundments. The assumption is that the original extent of the ecological community comprised connected river lengths. Large impoundments have since broken these up into a series of separate river lengths (disconnected by dams, barrages and permanently inundated river channels).

While it is apparent that fragmentation has occurred along river systems and affected some species, data have not been compiled in a form that enables a quantitative assessment of this element of geographic distribution across the range of the ecological community. It therefore cannot be determined whether an amount, in excess of a guideline threshold proportion of the former connected extent, has been lost from the ecological community.

Summary

The Committee considers that it has not been demonstrated that the ecological community has undergone a significant enough decline in its geographic distribution. Therefore, the Committee considers the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.


Criterion 2 -Small geographic distribution coupled with demonstrable threat

This criterion provides for the listing of ecological communities that have a naturally small geographic distribution and for which a threatening process exists within an understood or predicted time-frame (TSSC, 2010). This criterion recognises that an ecological community with a small distribution has an inherently higher risk of extinction if it is subject to threats, than one with a large distribution.

Three indicative measures are applied to assess this criterion:

1) extent of occurrence (i.e. the total geographic range of the ecological community);

2) area of occupancy (i.e. the area actually occupied by the ecological community within its natural range); and

3) patch size distribution, which is indicative of the degree of fragmentation.

As per criterion 1, the estimates of extent given here also exclude the upland and estuarine portions of the component river systems and assume that the lowland reaches comprise approximately one third of the entire length and catchment area of a given river system.

Extent of occurrence

The extent of occurrence for the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community covers the area between the Kolan River lowland catchment in Queensland and the Clarence River lowland catchment in New South Wales. This is roughly between Bundaberg in Queensland and Grafton in NSW, a distance of approximately 750 km. The total area of the catchments for all seven river systems is an estimated 93 000 km2 (from Norris et al. (2001)). Using the factor of one third gives an extent of occurrence of 31 000 km2 for the lowland areas of the catchments that equate to the ecological community. As estimates exceed the 10 000 km2 minimum threshold, the ecological community cannot be considered to have a ‘small geographic distribution’ in terms of its extent of occurrence.

Area of occupancy

The surface water expression of the ecological community is estimated to occupy a total area of approximately 51 km2 (in Table F1, above). An area of occupancy of <100km2 generally indicates a restricted distribution. It should be noted however, that the ecological community also occurs within local adjacent groundwater, below and lateral to the channel; including groundwater beneath the part of the active river channel that lacks surface water (the parafluvial zone18

). Inclusion of the parafluvial zone would increase the area of occupancy of the ecological community; however, the data have not been compiled to enable calculation of the full area of occupancy. TSSC (2010) also notes that for freshwater and marine systems, the notion of geographic distribution is further confounded by dealing with a fluid, moving environment. The inclusion of the parafluvial zone across the range of the ecological community may extend the total area of occupancy to more than 100 km2, but is likely to be <1000 km2. This is within the threshold to consider the geographic distribution as limited.

18 Parafluvial zone – see previous footnote on this, under Criterion 1


Fragmentation

Fragmented ecological communities are likely to be more susceptible to disturbances and adverse influences from the surrounding environment. The degree of fragmentation may influence how the aquatic ecological community responds to a threat, its resilience to a particular disturbance and, therefore, the degree to which reduction in community integrity is expressed. Fragmentation of reaches may interrupt connectivity among populations of aquatic species. Isolated population undergoing chance events or suffering a demographic decline cannot, in these cases, be rescued by connection with, and migration from, expanding populations. It is known that there are significant impoundments and canalisation along the extent of the various river systems that comprise the ecological community. For example Clayton et al. (2006) report that the Burnett River has 60% of its channel impounded; with the remaining 40% of flowing stream habitat fragmented into six sections, some as short as seven kilometres. However, data have not been compiled in a form that enables a quantitative assessment of this element of geographic distribution across the range of the ecological community.

Threats

The threats detailed in Appendix E (such as river regulation, over-abstraction, infrastructure projects, catchment development, urbanisation, introduced species and diffuse pollution) continue to impact the ecological community. These are likely to be compounded by the effects of climate change. However, the nature of the threats and their uneven impacts means that degradation across the ecological community’s range is greater in certain rivers (e.g. the Kolan, Brisbane and Logan/Albert rivers) than in others (e.g. the Mary and the Clarence rivers). Whilst these threats are likely to cause an ongoing decline of some species within the community (e.g. Maccullochella spp. (cod), Macquaria novemaculeata (Australian bass), Kuhlia rupestris (jungle perch) and Galaxias maculatus (common jollytail)), this is not the case for others (e.g. the lake environment created by dams favours some species, including Nematalosa erebi (bony herring/ bony bream), Arrhamphus sclerolepis (snub-nose garfish), Arius graeffei (fork-tailed catfish), various Hypseleotris spp. (carp gudgeon) and Craterocephalus stercusmuscarum (fly-specked hardyhead) (Stockwell et al., 2004)).

Overall the available data indicate variable levels of impact across the individual river systems that make up the ecological community. The data are insufficient to determine that the whole ecological community could be lost because of these threats; or to determine the timeframe over which such a loss might occur.

Summary

In summary, the geographic distribution of the ecological community may be considered to be limited. There are also demonstrable ongoing threats negatively impacting upon it, as detailed in Appendix E. However, the severity of these threats and the amount of degradation they cause are uneven across the range of the ecological community. Available data indicate variable levels of impact within individual river systems. The data are insufficient to determine that the whole ecological community could be lost because of these threats in the medium term (e.g. in the next 50 to 100 years). The Committee, therefore, considers that it has not been demonstrated that the ecological community meets all the relevant elements of Criterion 2 and therefore the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.


Criterion 3 - Loss or decline of functionally important species

This criterion refers to native species that are critically important in the processes that sustain, or play a major role in, the ecological community and whose removal has the potential to precipitate change in community structure or function. Where the species’ role is integral, its decline could lead to the loss of the ecological community.

This criterion provides timeframes in which the decline in the ecological community as a whole may be halted, or reversed, to ensure it does not become extinct (for example by natural processes, such as replacement of one functionally important species by another, or by other processes, such as management intervention).

The Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community is defined primarily as a faunal assemblage associated with certain riverine hydrological characteristics. The loss or decline of functionally important components is likely to be based upon the presence and abundance of key animal species or guilds that can be demonstrated to have particular functional importance, or that have a key role in trophic dynamics. In the case of this ecological community such a role would be most likely occupied by a suite of native fish species.

Fish perform a number of important ecological functions in freshwater riverine ecosystems (Gehrke, 2000). They occupy trophic levels from herbivores and detritivores through to carnivores at the top of the food chain. Fish also have a role in maintaining water quality, for instance, the suite of fish at different trophic levels helps to maintain a balance among zooplankton and phytoplankton populations that, in turn, prevents formation of algal blooms. The interactions that determine food chain processes can be quite complex and are strongly influenced by nutrient availability and other environmental conditions (Gehrke and Harris, 1994). Migratory fish also play a role in transporting carbon and energy upstream in rivers, which partially counteracts the movement of nutrients and materials washed downstream (Morris et al., 2001).

Australian rivers have a high proportion of migratory fish species. Diadromous19

Although diadromous fish may only be recorded in limited abundance, they are important in that they constitute: a large number of species within the ecological community; larger sized fish in the community; and because they increase the range of the reproductive, trophic and behavioural guilds. In particular diadromous fish made up the majority of carnivorous species which feed on allochthonous* inputs (e.g. insects falling in the water); as well as contributing to herbivorous and omnivorous guilds (Miles, 2007).

fish are particularly common in the eastern coastal regions of Australia (MacDonald, 1978; Harris and Rowland, 1996; Alan et al., 2002 – in Walsh, 2012). Of the 48 fish species recorded in rivers that comprise the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community, 25 to 30% (i.e. 12 – 14 species) are diadromous; a further 21% are migratory to some extent within freshwater. Because of disruption of their migratory habits diadromous fish are amongst the most threatened group of vertebrate species and are susceptible to extinction in many regions (Angermeier, 1995; Jonsson et al., 1999 in Miles, 2007).

19 Diadromous: Species that migrate between freshwater and seawater habitats, often as part of their reproductive cycle. Types of diadromy include: catadromous species that migrate from fresh water to spawn in the sea, e.g. eels of the genus Anguilla; anadromous species that live in the sea and migrate from there to spawn in fresh water, e.g. salmon; and amphidromous species that migrate in either direction as their migration is not tied to spawning, but to some other activity, such as feeding, e.g. river sharks.


Comprehensive data concerning the change in fish species in the multiple rivers across the ecological community are limited. However, there is some relevant information pertinent to specific river systems, or to particular species.

• Stockwell et al. (2008) noted declines in fish species for the Mary, Burnett and Kolan Rivers. Myxus capensis (freshwater mullet) have virtually disappeared from many large rivers in the area (Kind and Brooks 2003, Stuart and Berghuis, 2002); and the low abundance of Lates calcarifer (barramundi) in the Burnett catchment is also of concern (Lupton and Heidenreich 1999; Heidenreich and Lupton, 1999; Stuart and Berghuis, 2002). A decline in the commercial catches of barramundi in Queensland has been attributed to tidal barrages preventing migration (Pollard et al., 1980).

• Morris et al. (2001) noted that Galaxias maculatus (common jollytail) has not been found recently in locations where it was previously known to be common in New South Wales. Decline of this and other small freshwater schooling fishes in coastal rivers may be part of a broader decline in small native fish species in general (Gehrke and Harris, 1996 in Morris et al., 2001). This may be due to weirs and other barriers impeding downstream spawning migrations and/or the upstream migrations of juveniles. Similarly, modified flows and low water temperatures, due to river regulation, can affect riverine habitats downstream for great distances - inhibiting spawning cues as well as reducing the availability of preferred habitat (Morris et al., 2001).

• A fish species documented to have declined across the range of the ecological community is Kuhlia rupestris (jungle perch). Jungle perch is a diadromous species that breeds in lower estuarine or near shore marine environments from Cape York to north eastern NSW. Construction of weirs and barrages in waterways has impacted this species, leading to a severe reduction in numbers and local extinctions in some reaches (Hutchison and Simpson, 2002; Hutchison et al., 2002). Assisted recovery of jungle perch is problematic because there is low success of rearing from current methods - the larvae are difficult to maintain for more than a week after spawning (NSW DEEDI, 2011).

• Native cod (Maccullochella spp.) may be regarded as ’functionally important species’ due to their ecological role as apex predators. These species are now in decline. Maccullochella ikei (eastern freshwater cod, Clarence River cod), which historically occurred in the Clarence, Richmond and Logan-Albert river systems, is now restricted to two tributaries of the Clarence River. Maccullochella mariensis (Mary River cod) is now naturally limited to the Mary River but has been reintroduced to the Brisbane and Logan-Albert river systems. Both these species are listed as nationally endangered under the EPBC Act.

• However, the decline of cod species does not necessarily represent a complete loss of their ecological role. This is because other fish species can fulfil similar functions as key predators in lowland rivers. For example, Macquaria noveamaculata (Australian bass) naturally occurs in the lower Mary River, where it competes with cod for food and space (DSEWPAC, 2012b). Australian bass also occupies a similar freshwater niche in the Burnett and Kolan Rivers which are not known to have natural cod populations. Another apex predator that has the same functional role as cod in the northern part of the ecological community is barramundi.


Recovery potential

If it were it to be found that a population of a native species, that is likely to play a major role in the ecological community, had undergone a substantial decline - eligibility under criterion 3 also requires that it be shown that restoration of the ecological community is not likely to be possible in the medium term future (i.e. 50 – 100 years).

The larger fish species mentioned above (such as Australian bass and barramundi) are stocked in impoundments in some rivers of the ecological community for recreation fishing, or are the subject of applied research and development of stocking programs (jungle perch, eastern freshwater cod and Mary River cod). Ultimately, stocking adds to the recovery potential of these species, although there are also risks (such as loss of genetic diversity, or inadvertently introducing pest species, like the banded grunter). There are also well developed and prioritised plans to recover fish passage in these rivers, in both New South Wales and Queensland, as well as ongoing research into the flow requirements of a number of other fish species in the ecological community impacted by water resources development (e.g. sea mullet).

Given the above activities, as well as the environmental flow objectives for these river systems in Queensland (under the Queensland Water Act 2000), and the many existing plans and management prescriptions, it does not seem unlikely that any decline may be halted or reversed in the medium-term future (50 – 100 years) by management intervention.

Summary

There is limited quantitative information across the entire ecological community to address this criterion (i.e. information on: the rate or full extent of any species decline, precise functional roles of individual species within the ecological community, or the reliance of the ecological community upon such species).

There is some information about the functional roles of certain species (notably native freshwater fishes) and information that some native freshwater fish species are in decline in parts of the ecological community. However, this decline can be ameliorated by positive interventions that can allow fauna to recover within reasonable timeframes. It has not been demonstrated that restoration of the community is unlikely within the medium-term future, given positive human intervention and increasing knowledge. The Committee, therefore, considers that the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.


Criterion 4 - Reduction in community integrity

This criterion recognises that an ecological community can be threatened with ‘functional’ extinction through on-going modifications that do not necessarily lead to total destruction of all elements of the community. Changes in integrity can be measured by comparison with a ‘benchmark state’ that reflects, as closely as possible, the natural variation of the ecological community. Such a benchmark should reflect the ‘typical’ composition of its biotic elements, the maintenance of ecological processes that sustain the biota, and the stability of abiotic features (for example the stream banks and river beds that give structure to the river, or the flow regime of the river itself). Natural condition allows for a certain degree of variation due to natural fluctuations or disturbances, for instance, arising from droughts or floods that result in natural dynamics of water flows and inundation levels.

Loss of integrity as determined through ecosystem health and river/water condition ratings.

Various indicators are available to determine the quality or ecosystem health of river systems. These usually involve a range of biotic (e.g. fish and aquatic macroinvertebrate composition), physical/chemical (e.g. pH, temperature) and ecosystem process and nutrient cycling measures (Health e-waterways, 2013). Ratings of the stability of stream beds, river banks and cover of riparian or in-stream vegetation may also be applied. While these measures may be used on their own, the use of multiple indicators strengthens the determination of overall condition for a system.

Some system-level assessments of the condition of rivers within the ecological community have been undertaken and key observations are summarised in tables F2 and F3. The information shows that:

• Assessments of condition vary with respect to: individual river systems; the measures used to determine quality (e.g. biotic vs. hydrological vs. water quality variables); and, over time.

• Some results appear to be contradictory. For instance the Mary River was considered to have 88% of its length in poor quality (Table F3B) although a subsequent assessment indicated it was in only moderately modified condition overall (Table F2B). However, the ARCE environmental score was indicative of a relatively unmodified condition but its ARCB biotic score indicated a significant impairment within the system (Table F2A).

• Tables F3B and F3C imply a general improvement in condition for the Kolan River, Burnett River and, especially, the Mary River between assessments in the mid-90s and in 2011. It is not clear, however, how much of this is due to differences in survey and assessment methodology or remediation measures. In any case, the later assessment indicates these rivers may be in better condition than previously thought.

• Table F2A indicates that certain reaches were in chronically poor condition over the past decade, (e.g. the Logan River). There was no general trend towards improving or declining condition within any system, except for the mid-Brisbane River, which progressively degraded from a Good to a Fail rating between 2007 and 2012.


• The most comprehensive analysis of condition that included all component river systems was the national Assessment of River Condition (Norris et al., 2001). The indices across all river systems indicated the ecological community was generally in unmodified to moderate condition based on environmental features (median ARCE = 0.86) but was significantly to severely impaired in terms of biotic components (macroinvertebrates only) (median ARCB = 0.57) (Table F2A).

• An expert panel assessment indicated that the component river systems in Queensland have undergone moderate to severe modification (Table F2B). However, the ecological community generally appears to remain in better condition within NSW (Table F3C).

Table F2 is overleaf


Table F2. Condition assessment for rivers of the river basins that comprise the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community, from the Assessment of River Condition (ARC). The colour of the score is indicative of how ‘good’ it is (e.g. from pink or orange, to white).

Table A shows key condition indices for the river systems/basins that comprise the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. The ARCE index refers to Environmental features and is based on the four environmental disturbance indices shown. The ARCB index refers to the Biotic component, based on the aquatic invertebrate fauna. Part B gives an overall condition assessment of each basin as determined by an expert panel in Queensland but not NSW; note - the part B overall assessment does not conform to the indices given in part A.

A: Key condition indices. Source Norris et al. (2001).

Basin EC*

length (km)

Environmental Disturbance Index ARCE ARCB

Catchment Hydrological Habitat Nutrient &

Sediment Enviro-nmental Biotic

1 Kolan 119 0.68 - 0.69 0.22 - 0.48 2 Burnett 1,160 0.63 0.72 0.74 0.23 0.84 0.53 3 Mary 363 0.61 - 0.78 0.40 0.88 0.57 4 Brisbane 490 0.59 0.47 0.70 0.32 0.87 0.50 5 Logan-

Albert 159 0.60 0.88 0.75 0.31 0.87 0.58

6 Richmond 252 0.62 1 0.71 0.44 0.59 0.63 7 Clarence 858 0.68 - 0.86 0.39 0.72 0.59

Index averaged by length of EC* in basin 0.63 0.71 0.77 0.32 0.80 0.55

Note: *The EC (Ecological Community) length column gives the estimated river length containing the national ecological community for each river; these have then been used to calculate an average score for each index.

Legend: For environmental disturbance indices and ARCE levels of modification:

Severe disturbance

Substantial disturbance

Moderate disturbance

Unmodified

<0.25 0.25 – 0.50 0.50 – 0.75 >0.75

Legend: For ARCB levels of impairment:

Extreme impairment

Severe impairment

Significant impairment

Reference

<0.28 0.28 – 0.55 0.55 – 0.81 (Qld) 0.55 – 0.83 (NSW)

>0.81 (Qld) >0.83 (NSW)

B: Overall condition assessment by expert panel Basin Overall assessment 1 Kolan River The hydrology is severely modified and the catchment substantially modified from

natural. 2 Burnett River Substantially modified condition as a result of the barriers, water quality, catchment

condition and hydrology. 3 Mary River Moderately modified condition. 4 Brisbane River Has changed markedly from its natural state. In particular, hydrology was substantially

modified from natural. 5 Logan-Albert River Falls within the lowest 10 of all systems reviewed in Queensland. 6 Richmond River - 7 Clarence River -

Source: Norris et al. (2001) Note: The overall assessments (part B) do not conform to the indices given in part A. The numbers 1 to 7 are arbitrary - given to help ‘track’ the river systems through tables F2 & F3.


Table F3: Ecosystem health ratings for freshwater river systems in Queensland that are part of the Long subtropical lowland rivers ecological community. The colour of the score is indicative of how ‘good’ the score is. The numbers 1 to 7 are arbitrary, given to help track the rivers through tables F2 & F3.

A. Ratings from Health-e-Waterways assessments, based on a range of physical/chemical, biotic, ecosystem processes and nutrient cycling indicators. Source: Health-e-Waterways (2013)

Year Catchment 1 Mid Brisbane 5 Logan 5 Albert

2003 C C- C- 2004 B- C B 2005 C+ D B 2006 C+ D+ B- 2007 B- D B- 2008 B D B- 2009 C+ D A- 2010 C D+ B- 2011 D- C- B- 2012 F D+ C+

Legend for A:

B: Results from State of the Rivers assessments based on scores for a range of indicators such as riparian & aquatic vegetation, habitat diversity and values, stream bank, bed and bar stability. Sources: Johnson (1996) and van Manen (1999).

Catchment 1/3 of river length (km)

Percentage of stream length in each condition category Very Poor Poor Moderate Good Very Good

1 Kolan 119 0 10 39 51 0 2 Central Burnett (0.5 x 1160) 0 33 49 18 0 2 Lower Burnett (0.5 x 1160) 0 25 52 23 0 3 Mary 363 0 88 12 0 0

Length averaged values (%) 0 41 41 18 0

C: Results from the Aquatic Conservation Assessments for the Wide-Bay – Burnett catchments, incorporating the Kolan, Burnett and Mary Rivers. Source: Howell et al. (2011).

Catchment 1/3 of catchment area (km2)

Percentage of area assessed in each riverine aquascore category Very Low Low Medium High Very High

1 Kolan 119 0 0 14 60 26 2 Burnett 1160 0 0 32 49 19 3 Mary 363 0 0 18 49 33

Area averaged values (%) 0 0 28 50 22

D: Ratings from State of the Catchments – Northern Rivers Region assessment in NSW. Source: NSW DECCW (2010).

20 This figure (715 km) is high, given a total river length of 757 km for the Richmond, in Table F1.

F – Fail D – Poor

C – Fair B – Good A – Excellent

Measure 6 Richmond River 7 Clarence River Aquatic macroinvertebrates Moderate to Good Moderate to Good Fish Poor to Good Good Fish nativeness 100% 88% Hydrologic condition Good n/a Length of fish river habitat likely to be limited by high priority barriers. 715 km20 none


In general, a compilation of available information does not give a clear picture of the condition across the entire ecological community. What is apparent is that the quality of some reaches within the ecological community has declined, although other reaches appear to have been relatively less impacted. The later assessments imply there has been either an improvement in river condition or that the impacts are less severe than previously indicated.

Loss of integrity through artificial barriers in waterways

Barriers to migration (such as dams, weirs, barrages and some road crossings) can cause major discontinuities in species ranges; and, where present low down in a catchment, can lead to a loss of up to 50% of species upstream (Stockwell et al., 2004). Barriers are particularly problematic for diadromous fish, as their migratory habits make them susceptible to changes in water flows and connectivity (Angermeier, 1995; Jonsson et al., 1999 in Miles, 2007). Berghuis and Broadfoot (2004) reported that very little research has been conducted in Australia on effective fish lock designs for downstream fish passage; although more has been carried out recently. Existing fish lock designs have poor efficacy in allowing fish movement downstream.

Some documented examples of the extent of barriers, their impacts to native fish migration and efforts to manage these impacts include the following.

• On the Kolan River, the construction of Bucca Weir has impeded access to Gin Gin Creek, a major tributary of the river. The only diadromous species now recorded upstream of the weir are fork-tailed catfish, long-finned eels and snub-nosed garfish (Southern Fishway Team, 2000). Catfish and garfish are capable of completing their entire life cycle in freshwater, so can establish in relatively confined reaches, whilst eels are highly mobile and better able than most species to traverse weirs and other barriers.

• The Ben Andersen tidal Barrage in the Burnett River is a significant barrier to fish migration. The barrage was "retro-fitted" with a vertical slot fishway in 1997. An extensive fisheries study of the freshwater reaches of the Burnett River recorded an overall increase of Mugil cephalus (striped mullet) since the construction of the fishway. Also, the cumulative effect of mortalities of fish passing over the spillway of the Paradise Dam on the Burnett River is likely to have a major impact on populations of fish over the longer term.

• It was estimated that 95% of the Mary River system and 90% of the Brisbane River system (calculated as ‘smoothed valley length’) is upstream of major barriers (Harris, 1984a). In the Mary River system, structures such as the Tinana Creek Barrage, Teddington Weir and Tallegalla Weir have impeded passage of diadromous species such that eels are the only unstocked diadromous fish now occurring above Teddington Weir.

• Vertical slot fishways were incorporated into Tinana Creek Barrage and the Mary River Barrage. However, there is evidence that fishways do not assist the migration of certain species. Fish such as Platycephalus fuscus (dusky flathead), and Liza subviridis (flat-tailed mullet) were formerly present upstream before the barrages were constructed (Johnson et al., 1982; Field et al.,1983 in Stockwell et al., 2004)). They have not been recorded upstream, or passing through the fishways since then Stockwell et al. (2004).

• Barriers can also prevent return following displacement caused by flood. For example, any significant sized lungfish or cod, or turtles swept over barrages, such as that on the Mary River during flood are not be able to return to the freshwater section of the river (i.e. to the ecological community).


• Access to part of the Logan-Albert River system by diadromous fish species (including eels, Australian bass, mullet, bullrout and several gudgeon species is already limited by weirs (South MacLean and Bromelton).

• On the Kolan River, the construction of Bucca Weir has impeded access to Gin Gin Creek, a major tributary of the river. The only diadromous species now recorded upstream of the weir are fork-tailed catfish, long-finned eels and snub-nosed garfish (Southern Fishway Team, 2000). Catfish and garfish are capable of completing their entire life cycle in freshwater, so can establish in relatively confined reaches, whilst eels are highly mobile and better able than most species to traverse weirs.

• Major artificial barriers impact on relatively less of the ecological community in New South Wales. Harris (1984a) estimated that 14% of the perennial Richmond River system and 11% of the perennial Clarence River system were upstream of all barriers. It should be noted, however, that Harris (1984a) excluded road crossings and flood control works from the barrier assessment. Subsequently, 161 existing road crossings throughout the Richmond River catchment, and 114 crossings throughout the Clarence River catchment, were identified as obstructing fish passage (NSW DPI, 2006). NSW Government (2010) identified barriers that have a major impact on fish passage and aquatic habitat condition and produced priority rankings for their remediation. The top priority rankings included three barriers in the Richmond River (Manyweathers Weir, Cookes Weir and Kyogle Water Supply) but none in the Clarence River. It should be noted however, that appendix F and G of NSW DPI (2006) show the locations of road crossing barriers in the Richmond catchment are mostly upstream of Lismore (i.e. any impacts are limited to less than half of the lowland catchment) and in the Clarence River most of the road crossing barriers are far upstream.

There are limited quantitative data on the decline in fish numbers or biomass directly related to the barriers in the ecological community, but it is clear that the disruption to the migration, breeding and recruitment of diadromous fish species is substantial. Therefore, the reduction in integrity across much of the ecological community’s geographic distribution is substantial, as indicated by the substantial disruption of important community processes.

Recovery potential As with the previous criterion (Criterion 3), recovery potential is an important consideration here also and the following guideline applies. Where a substantial reduction in integrity has occurred the change must be such that restoration is unlikely within the medium-term future (e.g. 50 years), even with positive human intervention; and for the purposes of this criterion ‘restoration’ is defined as the re-establishment (or recovery) of ecological processes, species composition and community structure (TSSC, 2010).

As outlined for Criterion 3, the above impacts are amenable to positive human intervention, if recovery actions / threat abatement continues over the medium-term future. The impacts of barriers may be remediated by positive interventions, including: restocking of fish (such as Australian bass and barramundi) into river sections impacted by barriers; construction of fish passage ways within existing barriers; and, removal or alteration of smaller barriers so they no longer impede species movement. These activities (allied with environmental flow objectives) are likely to allow opportunities for parts of the system to recover within reasonable timeframes, albeit that some of these remediation actions may only be partially successful. For instance, at present some species (such as jungle perch) are currently unable to be successfully bred (or reared) in captivity which limits their capacity for restocking (although research is ongoing) - while other species do not benefit from current fishways built into barriers, as noted above.


Summary

Whilst there is a lack of detailed information for loss of integrity across the entire ecological community, there is information for component river systems that indicates a loss of connectivity impacting some species. Some of the available data on quality of the river systems appears to be contradictory among studies. While river systems have certainly undergone degradation, later studies of river quality imply that many of the component systems are in reasonably good condition.

Barriers to store water or regulate water flows have been constructed along many reaches of the ecological community and these have had an impact on its integrity, notably on the diadromous fish fauna. A substantial reduction in integrity across most of the ecological community’s geographic distribution has occurred. However, some of these impacts can be ameliorated by positive interventions that can allow fauna to recover within reasonable timeframes. It has not been demonstrated that restoration is unlikely within the medium-term future given positive human intervention and increasing knowledge.

Therefore, the available evidence for the ecological community, as a whole, is either insufficient or indicative that it demonstrates this criterion is not met. The Committee, therefore, considers that the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.

Criterion 5 - Rate of continuing detrimental change

There are indications that detrimental change may be continuing to occur in the ecological community but no data are available to measure what rate of detrimental change applies across the entire range of the ecological community. Therefore, the Committee considers the ecological community is not eligible for listing in any category under this criterion.

Criterion 6 - Quantitative analysis showing probability of extinction

There are no quantitative data available to assess this ecological community under this criterion. Therefore, it is not eligible for listing under this criterion.


Appendix G: Glossary

Active river channel: A portion of the channel that is somewhat lower than bankfull, as in the following definition: “the portion of the channel commonly wetted during and above winter base flows... identified by a break in rooted vegetation or moss growth on rocks along stream margins” (Taylor and Love 2003). The ordinary high water mark is sometimes given as the elevation defining the active channel. See also Parafluvial zone.

Allochthonous: Coming from outside the aquatic system (e.g. insects, plant and soil material that has fallen in, or been washed into a river from the land).

Alluvial river: River in which the river bed and banks are made up of sediment (alluvium) deposited by the river.

AMTD: Adopted Middle Thread Distance. The distance along a watercourse in kilometres (measured along the middle of a watercourse) at which a specific point occurs (i.e. distance from the watercourse's mouth; or if the watercourse is not a main watercourse, distance from that watercourse's confluence with its main watercourse).

Anadromous: Species such as salmon that live in the sea mostly and migrate from salt water to spawn in fresh water. See also Diadromous.

Amphidromous: Species, such as Carcharhinus leucas (river shark) whose migrations are not directly tied to spawning, but to some other activity, such as feeding. See also Diadromous.

Armoured river bed: Coarse surface layer overlying finer sediment. An armour layer forms on a river bed when the finer particles are eroded away in small floods leaving the coarser material behind. Armouring is an important element of stream stability since it acts to stop further erosion.

Billabong: A billabong, or oxbow lake, is an old river meander that has been cut off and become isolated from the main river channel.

Canals: Sections of the river that have been straightened or deepened, or artificially forced to flow along a particular course, by engineering works; often within a concrete channel. These are excluded from the ecological community as being no longer natural. Areas altered by more minor structures, such as bridges, gauging weirs and fords are not explicitly excluded; these may be considered to be degraded areas, rather than wholly unnatural.

Canalised reaches: These are excluded from the nationally defined ecological community as being no longer natural. Areas altered by more minor structures, such as bridges, gauging weirs and fords are not explicitly excluded; these may be considered to be degraded areas, rather than wholly unnatural. Canalised reaches are sections of the river that have been straightened or deepened, or artificially forced to flow along a particular course, by engineering works; often within a concrete channel.

Catadromous: Species that live in freshwater and migrate from fresh water to spawn in the sea, e.g. eels of the genus Anguilla whose larvae drift on the open ocean, sometimes for months or years, before travelling thousands of kilometres back to their original streams. See also Diadromous.


Diadromous: Species that migrate between freshwater and seawater habitats, often as part of their reproductive cycle. Types of diadromy include: catadromous species, live in freshwater and migrate from fresh water to spawn in the sea, e.g. eels of the genus Anguilla whose larvae drift on the open ocean, sometimes for months or years, before travelling thousands of kilometres back to their original streams; anadromous species such as salmon live in the sea mostly and migrate from salt water to spawn in fresh water; and amphidromous species, such as Carcharhinus leucas (river shark), whose migrations are not directly tied to spawning, but to some other activity, such as feeding. See also Potadromous.

Downstream limit: the point at which the ecological community meets the upstream limit of the rivers’ estuary, or where the river encounters a tidal weir, or an impoundment behind an estuary barrage. In the absence of man-made structures, the upstream limit of mangrove growth or of saltmarshes is a good indicator of the downstream limit of the ecological community. Where an upstream mangrove or saltmarsh limit is impractical to apply, a limit set as the most downstream gauging station could be used, since these are set above the tidal influence.

Estuaries: The downstream limit of the ecological community is the upstream limit of the rivers’ estuary, or where the river encounters a tidal weir, or an impoundment behind an estuary barrage. In the absence of man-made structures, the upstream limit of mangrove growth or of saltmarshes is a good indicator of the downstream limit of the ecological community. Where an upstream mangrove or saltmarsh limit is impractical to apply, a limit set as the most downstream gauging station could be used, since these are set above the tidal influence.

Epiphyte: A plant, such as a tropical orchid or a staghorn fern, which grows on another plant but is not parasitic on it. It derives moisture and nutrients from the air and rain.

Eponymous: Having the name that is used as the title or name of something else (e.g. the catchment is named for the river).

Euryhaline: Able to tolerate a wide range of salinity.

Eutrophication: an abundant accumulation of nutrients that can support a dense growth of algae and other organisms, the decay of which depletes waters of oxygen.

Floodplain: Alluvial plain (relatively flat landform pattern, with low relief), characterised by active erosion and deposition by channelled and overbank stream flow.

Fluvifaunula: Animals (such as fish, crustacean, molluscs and other aquatic fauna species) which together are found in a particular river, or a series of rivers within a defined region (or province). The Krefftian fluvifaunula province extends along the east coast of southern Queensland. The Lessonian fluvifaunula occurs in most of the rivers of eastern New South Wales, Victoria and northern Tasmania.

IBRA: ‘Interim Biogeographic Regionalisation of Australia’ categorises the Australian continent into 80 regions of similar geology, landform, vegetation, fauna and climate. IBRA version 7 was used when defining this aquatic ecological community.

Lentic water: Standing or non-flowing body of water such as a lake, reservoir, or swamp; as opposed to lotic, flowing waters such as rivers and streams.

Logan: The Logan River catchment is also referred to as the Logan-Albert catchment.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/algae�

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/which�


Macleay/ MacPherson Overlap: Biogeographic transition zone, between the temperate, and tropical zones inland of the eastern Australian coast. The Overlap is also known as the MacPherson – Macleay Overlap; the Macleay Overlap; the Macleay/Mcpherson Overlap; or, the Mcpherson Macleay Overlap.

Macrofauna: Small animals that are still large enough to see with the naked eye.

Macroinvertebrates: Another term for macrofauna, specifically small animals, that are still large enough to see with the naked eye, without a backbone, but still large enough to see with the naked eye. Aquatic macroinvertebrates include insects (beetles, moths, and dragonflies), aquatic earthworms, freshwater mussels, snails, limpets, prawns and crayfish. Macroinvertebrates are larger than meiofauna.

Meiofauna: Small sediment associated invertebrate organisms, intermediate in size between microbes and macrofauna.

Native riparian vegetation: Areas of largely native vegetation, adjacent to the river. For the purposes of this advice, it is defined as having at least 50% of the vegetation cover in the overstorey, where present, comprised of native species.

Parafluvial zone: The groundwater alongside the hyporheic zone, extending outwards beneath the entire active river channel (see also Active river channel).

Perennial river: River or stream that has continuous flow in parts of its bed all year round during years of normal rainfall. Perennial streams are contrasted with intermittent streams which normally cease flowing for weeks or months each year, and with ephemeral channels that flow only for hours or days following rainfall. During unusually dry years, a normally perennial stream may cease flowing, becoming intermittent for days, weeks, or months depending on the severity of the drought. For ease of identification in relation to this advice. Rivers and reaches that currently or historically contained water throughout non-drought years.

Phenology: The influence of climate on the recurrence of such annual phenomena of animal and plant life as budding and bird migrations.

Potadromous: Fish that migrate wholly within freshwater. See also Diadromous.

Overstorey: The uppermost layer of foliage forming a canopy layer (e.g. in woodlands); as opposed to the understory, which grows beneath this.

Quaternary: Geologic time period; approximately the last 2.6 million years. The Quaternary Period covers the time span of glaciations classified as the Pleistocene Epoch, and includes the present interglacial period, the Holocene Epoch.

Riffle/pool/bar: Along the river erosion, transport, and deposition of sediments create alternating shallow and deep sections, termed ‘riffles’ and ‘pools’ respectively, and areas of emergent sediment called ‘bars’. These are of significant functional and ecological importance, and are typically areas of high biodiversity.

River: Any riverine part of the river system including river branches, tributaries, creeks and streams. The use of the term ‘reach’ refers to any section, stretch, length, or part of a river between any two points.

Ruderals: Plant species that colonise disturbed land.


Spates: Short, high flow events in rivers and streams that are usually associated with periods of heavy rainfall.

Unconsolidated alluvial aquifer: Sediment (such as sand, gravel, clay and silt ) that is not cemented together and contains ground water, or lets groundwater travel through it - As opposed to an aquifer in a fractured rock system, which is more common in upland areas; or an aquifer in a porous limestone (karst) landscape.

Wallum river: Sandy, tannin stained (tea-coloured), low pH coastal freshwater rivers and streams that are typically inhabited by a different assemblage of species. They tend to be considerably shorter steeper river systems than the systems that contain this ecological community. Wallum reaches of non-Wallum river systems are still included.


7. Bibliography

Abal EG, Moore KB, Gibbes BR and Dennison WC [Eds.] (2002). State of South-east Queensland Waterways Report 2001. Moreton Bay Waterways and Catchments Partnership.

Allen GR, Midgley SH and Allen M (2002). Field Guide to the Freshwater Fishes of Australia. Museum of Western Australia & CSIRO Publishing.

ANCLD [Australian National Committee on Large Dams] (1990). Register of large dams in Australia, 1990. International Commission on Large Dams, National Committee on Large Dams. Hydroelectric Commission, Hobart. Data updated 2001. Last accessed: 10/01/12. Available on the Internet at: http://www.ancold.org.au/content.asp?PID=10005

Angermeier PL (1995). Ecological attributes of extinction prone species: loss of freshwater fishes of Virginia. Conservation Biology 9: 143–158. Available on the Internet at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386396?origin=JSTOR-pdf

ANRA 2002. Australian Natural Resources Atlas. Commonwealth of Australia. Last accessed: 12/01/12. Available on the Internet at: http://www.anra.gov.au/index.html

ANZECC [Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council] (2000). Australian and New Zealand guidelines for fresh and marine water quality. Volume 1, The guidelines. Australian and New Zealand Environment and Conservation Council, Agriculture and Resource Management Council of Australia and New Zealand.

Arthington AH and Pusey BJ (2003). Flow Restoration and Protection in Australian Rivers. River Research and Applications 19: 377–395. Available on the Internet at: http://www.megacity-conference2009.ufz.de/data/flow%20restoration6631.pdf

ASFB [Australian Society for Fish Biology] (2001). Eastern Freshwater Cod - Maccullochella ikei Threatened Fish Profile. Last accessed: 23/01/13. Available on the Internet at: http://www.asfb.org.au/committees/threatened-species-profiles/tfp_efcod.htm

Baldwin DS and Mitchell A (2000). The effects of drying and re-flooding on the sediment and soil nutrient dynamics of lowland river-floodplain systems: A synthesis. Regulated Rivers: Research and Management 16: 457–467. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1099-1646(200009/10)16:5%3C457::AID-RRR597%3E3.0.CO;2-B/abstract

Ballina Shire Council (undated). State of Environment Report – Section 2 Water. Available on the Internet at: http://www.ballina.nsw.gov.au/em_res.asp?id=853.

Baur GN (1962). Research Note #8. Forest Vegetation in North-Eastern New South Wales. NSW Forestry Commission, Division of Forest Management.

Barmuta LA, Marchant R and Lake PS (1992). Degradation of Australian streams and progress towards conservation and management in Victoria. In ‘River Conservation and Management’ (Eds. PJ Boon, P Calow and GE Petts). p 65–79. John Wiley and Sons. UK

Baxter CV, Fausch KD and Saunders WC (2005). Tangled webs: reciprocal flows of invertebrate prey link streams and riparian zones. Freshwater Biology 50: 201–220.

http://www.ancold.org.au/content.asp?PID=10005�

http://www.jstor.org/stable/2386396?origin=JSTOR-pdf�

http://www.anra.gov.au/index.html�

http://www.megacity-conference2009.ufz.de/data/flow%20restoration6631.pdf�

http://www.asfb.org.au/committees/threatened-species-profiles/tfp_efcod.htm�

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1099-1646(200009/10)16:5%3C457::AID-RRR597%3E3.0.CO;2-B/abstract�

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/1099-1646(200009/10)16:5%3C457::AID-RRR597%3E3.0.CO;2-B/abstract�

http://www.ballina.nsw.gov.au/em_res.asp?id=853�


Bean AR, Sparshott KM, McDonald WJF and Neldner VJ (Eds.) (1998). Forest ecosystem mapping and analysis of south-eastern Queensland biogeographic region. Vegetation survey and mapping. Report for Queensland CRA/RFA steering committee. Queensland Herbarium and Environment Australia, Brisbane. Available on the Internet at: http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/49323/qld_se_eh12a.pdf.

Berghuis AP and Broadfoot CD (2004). Downstream passage of fish at Ned Churchward Weir fishlock, Queensland Fisheries Service, Bundaberg, Report to the Department of State Development: 18.

Bishop KA and Bell JD (1978). Observations on the fish fauna below Tallowa Dam Shoalhaven River, New South Wales) during river flow stoppages. Australian Journal of Freshwater Research. 29: 543–549.

BMRG [Burnett Mary Regional Group] (2010) The Burnett-Baffle Water Quality Improvement plan (WQIP). Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.bmrg.org.au/index.php/download_file/view/509/152/.

BOM [Bureau of Meteorology] (2011). Queensland River Information Brochures. Last accessed: 15/01/12. Available on the Internet at: http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/

Boulton AJ, Findlay S, Marmonier P, Stanley EH and Valett HM (1998). The functional significance of the hyporheic zone in streams and rivers. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 29: 59–81. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/221702

Bonzle (2012). Bonzle Digital Atlas of Australia. Digital Atlas Pty Limited . Last accessed: 12/12/12. Available on the Internet at: www.bonzle.com.au 21

Brigza S, Arthington A, Choy S, Duivenvoorden L, Kennard M, Maynard R and Poplawski W (2000). Technical Advisory Panel report In: Burnett Basin WAMP, Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines, Brisbane.

Brizga S (2011). Personal communication 13th June 2011. Riffle – pool – bar community: geomorphological characteristics. S Brizga & Associates Pty Ltd. Environmental Consultants.

Broadfoot CD, Berghuis AP and Heidenreich MJ (2000) Assessment of the Kolan River barrage vertical-slot fishway. Queensland Department of Primary Industries Report for the Department of Natural Resources State Water Projects.

Brodie R, Sundaram B, Tottenham R, Hostetler S, and Ransley T (2007). An adaptive management framework for connected groundwater-surface water resources in Australia. Bureau of Rural Sciences. Available on the Internet at: http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/adaptivemgtframeworkgroundwatersurfacewater.pdf

Brooks SG and Kind PK (2002). Ecology and demography of the Queensland lungfish (Neoceratodus forsteri) in the Burnett River, Queensland with reference to the impacts of Walla Weir and future water infrastructure development. Queensland Department of Primary Industries. Queensland, Queensland Agency for Food and Fibre Services.

21 Bonzle uses data under licence from: Australian Bureau of Statistics; Australian Bureau of Meteorology; and Geoscience Australia.

http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0003/49323/qld_se_eh12a.pdf�

http://www.bmrg.org.au/index.php/download_file/view/509/152/�

http://www.bom.gov.au/hydro/flood/qld/brochures/�

http://www.jstor.org/stable/221702�

http://www.bonzle.com.au/�

http://adl.brs.gov.au/brsShop/data/adaptivemgtframeworkgroundwatersurfacewater.pdf�


BSR [Big Scrub Rainforest] Landcare Group (2008). Common weeds of subtropical rainforests of eastern Australia. BSR Landcare Group. Bangalow, NSW.

Bunn SE and Arthington AH (2002). Basic principles and ecological consequences of altered flow regimes for aquatic biodiversity. Environmental Management 30 (4): 492–507. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/6758/1/

Bunn S and Davies P.M. (2007). Chapter 4: Aquatic food webs. In ‘Principles for riparian lands management’ (Eds. S Lovett and P Price). p 47–62. Land and Water Australia. Canberra. Last accessed: 07/03/12. Available on the Internet at: http://lwa.gov.au/products/px061170

Burbidge NT (1960). The phytogeography of the Australian region. Australian Journal of Botany 8: 75–209. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=BT9600075

Butler G, Mackay B, Gilligan D, Broderick A (2012) Relative condition of the freshwater fish community in the Hastings Basin: North Coast New South Wales Ecohealth Program. A report to the Northern Rivers Catchment Management Authority, August 2012. Available on the Internet at: http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/Ecohealth/Port-Ecohealth/pmh-ecohealth-fish-condition-report.pdf

Cameron LM, Baumgartner LJ, Bucher DJ and Robinson W (2012). Optimising chemical marking techniques for Australian bass, Macquaria novemaculeata, fry and fingerlings prior to restocking. Australian Journal of Zoology 59 (4): 242–248. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO11043.htm

Canonicoa GC, Arthington A, Jeffrey K, Mccraryc JK, and Thiemee ML (2005). The effects of introduced tilapias on native biodiversity. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 15: 463–483

Capon SJ and Dowe JL (2007). Chapter 2: Diversity and dynamics of riparian vegetation. In ‘Principles for Riparian Lands Management’ (Eds. S Lovett and P Price). p 13–32. Land and Water Australia. Last accessed: 07/03/12. Available on the Internet at: http://lwa.gov.au/products/px061170

Castelle AJ, Conolly C, Emeers M, Metz ED, Heyer S, Witter M, Mauermann S, Erickson T and Cooke SS (1992). Wetland Buffers: Use and Effectiveness. Report for Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands and Coastal Zone Management Program. Available on the Internet at: http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/92010.pdf

Clarence Landcare (2012). The Clarence River Catchment. Last accessed: 17/01/12. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://clarencelandcare.com.au/?page_id=182

http://www98.griffith.edu.au/dspace/bitstream/10072/6758/1/�

http://lwa.gov.au/products/px061170�

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?paper=BT9600075�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/Ecohealth/Port-Ecohealth/pmh-ecohealth-fish-condition-report.pdf�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/Ecohealth/Port-Ecohealth/pmh-ecohealth-fish-condition-report.pdf�

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/ZO11043.htm�

http://lwa.gov.au/products/px061170�

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/pubs/92010.pdf�

http://clarencelandcare.com.au/?page_id=182�


Clayton PD, Fielder DP, Howell S and Hill CJ. (2006). Aquatic Biodiversity Assessment and Mapping Method [AquaBAMM]: A conservation values assessment tool for wetlands with trial application in the Burnett. River catchment. Published by the Environmental Protection Agency, Brisbane. Last accessed 20/02/2013. Now available on the Internet at: http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/assessment/assessment-methods/aca/

and {the entire report - Including Appendix A. Burnett catchment riverine wetland ACA [Aquatic Conservation Assessment] – Aquatic Fauna Expert Panel report (and) Appendix B. Burnett catchment riverine wetland ACA – Aquatic and Riparian Flora Expert Panel report} at: http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/resources/static/pdf/assessment-monitoring/aquabamm/method/aquabamm_burnett_r_aca_v1_1_part_abc.zip

{See also Howell et al. (2011). Aquatic Conservation Assessments using AquaBAMM for the riverine and non-riverine wetlands of the Wide Bay-Burnett catchments Version 1.1}

CRC [Co-Operative Research Centre] for Catchment Hydrology (2005). Brisbane River. The Catchment at a Glance. Last accessed: 20/01/12. Available on the Internet at: http://www.catchment.crc.org.au/focus_catchments/brisriver.html

Dawson K (2002). Fishkill events and habitat losses of the Richmond River, NSW Australia: an overview. Journal of coastal research - special issue (ICS 2002 proceedings) 36: 216–221. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Now available on the Internet at: http://www.science.ulst.ac.uk/ics2002/katryna%20dawson.pdf.

DEWHA [Department of the Environment, Water, Heritage and the Arts] (2009). The Likely Extent of Riffle / Pool / Bar Ecological Communities in Temperate Coastal Rivers of Eastern Australia South of the Tropic of Capricorn. Unpublished report.

Doing H (1981). Phytogeography of the Australian floristic kingdom. In ‘Australian Vegetation’ (Ed. Groves R H). Cambridge University Press. Sydney. p 3–25.

DSEWPAC [Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities] (2012a). Neoceratodus forsteri in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Last accessed: 13/12/12. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=67620

DSEWPAC (2012b). Maccullochella mariensis (Mary River Cod) in Species Profile and Threats Database, Department of Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities, Canberra. Last accessed: 13/12/12. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat. http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=83806

Ebregt A and De Greve P (2000). Buffer Zones and their Management. Policy and best practices for terrestrial ecosystems in developing countries. Theme Studies Series, Forests, Forestry and Biological Diversity Support Group. National Reference Centre for Nature Management, International Agricultural Centre. Wageningen, The Netherlands. Last accessed: 28/11/11. Available on the Internet at: http://edepot.wur.nl/118089

Faragher RA and Harris JH (1994). The historical and current status of freshwater fish in New South Wales. Australian Zoologist 29: 166–176.

http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/assessment/assessment-methods/aca/�

http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/resources/static/pdf/assessment-monitoring/aquabamm/method/aquabamm_burnett_r_aca_v1_1_part_abc.zip�

http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/resources/static/pdf/assessment-monitoring/aquabamm/method/aquabamm_burnett_r_aca_v1_1_part_abc.zip�

http://www.catchment.crc.org.au/focus_catchments/brisriver.html�

http://www.science.ulst.ac.uk/ics2002/katryna%20dawson.pdf�

http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat�

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=67620�


http://www.environment.gov.au/cgibin/sprat/public/publicspecies.pl?taxon_id=83806�

http://edepot.wur.nl/118089�


Field EJ, Johnson IC and Bruce NL (1983). Survey of the Mary River macrofauna: supplementary report. University of Quensland, Department of Zoology, St Lucia.

Flakus S and Connell M (2008). The Mary River Turtle - yesterday, today, tomorrow. Brochure produced for Tiaro and District Landcare. Available on the Internet at: www.maryriverturtle.com/downloads/brochure.pdf

Fowler J and Hollister J (2010). The reptiles of Australia. A Listing of Australian Turtles. Last accessed: 24/10/11. Available on the Internet at: http://reptilesofaustralia.com/turtles/turtles.htm

Gehrke, P.C. (2000). Status of Freshwater Fisheries Resources 1998/99. NSW Fisheries 2000 Status Report. NSW Fisheries Research Institute, Cronulla.

Gehrke PC and Harris JH (1994). The role of fish in cyanobacterial blooms in Australia. Australian Journal of Marine and freshwater research 45: 905–915. Available on the Internet at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF9940905.htm

Gehrke PC and Harris JH (1996). Fish and fisheries of the Hawkesbury-Nepean river system. NSW Fisheries Office of Conservation, Sydney.

Gehrke PC (1997). Species richness and composition of freshwater fish communities in New South Wales rivers. Chapter 5 In ‘Fish and Rivers in Stress: the NSW Rivers Survey” (Eds. JH Harris and PC Gehrke). Available on the Internet at: http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au/Publications.nsf/0/b91721ae5974c0e9ca256f19000f0620/$FILE/Fish&Rivers%20in%20Stress%20-%20ch.5,6.pdf

Georges A and Thomson S (2010). Diversity of Australasian freshwater turtles, with an annotated synonymy and keys to species. Zootaxa 2496: 1–37. Available on the Internet at: www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02496p037.pdf

Gregory SV, Lamberti GA, and Moore KMS (1989). Influence of Valley Floor Landforms on Stream Ecosystems. USDA Forest Service Gen. Tech. Rep. PSW-110. 1989. Available on the Internet at: http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr110/psw_gtr110_a_gregory.pdf.

Gregory SV, Swanson FJ, McKee WA, and Cummins KW (1991). An ecosystem perspective of riparian zones. BioScience 41 (8): pp540 (12). Available on the Internet at: http://www.uvm.edu/~watercmp/students/reading/Gregory%20et%20al.%202001.pdf.

Griffith C (1996). Dredging banned on river. The Brisbane Sunday Mail, 27 Oct 1996. Last accessed: 20/09/12 Available on the Internet at: http://www.chrisgriffith.com/1990s/1996/dredge1.html

Harris JH (1984a). Impoundment of coastal drainages of south-eastern Australia and a review of its relevance to fish migration. Australian Zoology 21 (3): 235–250.

Harris JH (1984b). A survey of fishways in streams of coastal south-eastern Australia. Australian Zoology 21 (3): 219–234.

Harris JH (1988). Demography of the Australian Bass, Macquaria novemaculeata (Perciformes: Percichthyidae) in the Sydney Basin. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 39: 355–369. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF9880355.htm

http://www.maryriverturtle.com/downloads/brochure.pdf�

http://reptilesofaustralia.com/turtles/turtles.htm�

http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF9940905.htm�

http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au/Publications.nsf/0/b91721ae5974c0e9ca256f19000f0620/$FILE/Fish&Rivers%20in%20Stress%20-%20ch.5,6.pdf�

http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au/Publications.nsf/0/b91721ae5974c0e9ca256f19000f0620/$FILE/Fish&Rivers%20in%20Stress%20-%20ch.5,6.pdf�

http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2010/f/zt02496p037.pdf�

http://www.fs.fed.us/psw/publications/documents/psw_gtr110/psw_gtr110_a_gregory.pdf�

http://www.uvm.edu/~watercmp/students/reading/Gregory%20et%20al.%202001.pdf�

http://www.chrisgriffith.com/1990s/1996/dredge1.html�



Harris JH and Battaglene SC (1989). The introduction and translocation of native freshwater fishes in south-eastern Australia. In ‘Introduced and translocated fishes and their ecological effects. Proceedings of the Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop No.8. (Ed. DA Pollard). Bureau of Rural Resources.

Harris JH, Bruce A, Brown P, Curran SJ, Driver P, Faragher R, Gehrke PC, Hartley S, Lintermans M, Maclean P, Mallen-Cooper M, Marsden TJ, Mathews J, Moffatt D, Pethebridge R, Price N, Rava L, Reid D, Rodgers M, Schiller C, Silveira R, Stuart I, Swales S, Thorncraft G, Stutsel M and Wooden I (1996). Study of the Fish Resources of NSW, The NSW Rivers Survey Final Report, Part 1_ Data. NSW RCAC [Resources and Conservation Assessment Council] Project G8. NSW Fisheries Research Institute and the Cooperative the Cooperative Research Centre for Freshwater Ecology. Unpublished Report to the NSW RCAC.

Harris JH and Rowland SJ (1996). Family Percichthyidae - Australian freshwater cods and basses. In ‘Freshwater Fishes of South-eastern Australia’ (Ed. RM McDowall). Revised edition: 150–163. Reed Books, Sydney.

Harris JH and Silveira R (1999). Large-scale river-health assessments using an Index of Biotic Integrity based on low fish-community diversity. Freshwater Biology 41: 235–252.

Haslam SM (1978). River Plants: the Macrophytic Vegetation of Water Courses. Cambridge University Press. Cambridge, UK.

Health-e-Waterways (2013). Health-e-Waterways Program Website. University of Queensland, Brisbane. Last accessed: 21/02/13 Available on the Internet at: http://www.health-e-waterways.org/ and http://www.health-e-waterways.org/reportcard

Heidenreich MJ and Lupton (1999). A riverine fisheries resource assessment of the Burnett River catchment in the Wide Bay - Burnett Region of Queensland. Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

Hodgkinson JH (2007). Drainage patterns in southeast Queensland: the key to concealed geological structures? Australian Journal of Earth Sciences 54 (8). Available on the Internet at: http://www.isr.qut.edu.au/downloads/2007_jane_hodg_smcl_cox_ajes.pdf

Hodgkinson JH (2009). Geological control of physiography in Southeast Queensland: a multi-scale analysis using GIS. PhD thesis. Queensland University of Technology. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29968/

Horton D (1973). The Concept of Zoogeographic Subregions. Systematic Zoology 22 (2): 191–195. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/2412103

Howell S, Zann M and Rollason S (2011). Aquatic Conservation Assessments (ACA) using AquaBAMM for the riverine and non-riverine wetlands of the Wide Bay-Burnett catchments Version 1.1 {incorporating the Kolan, Burnett and Mary Rivers}. Department of Environment and Resource Management, Queensland Government. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/assessment/assessment-methods/aca/wide-bay-burnett.html

http://www.health-e-waterways.org/�

http://www.health-e-waterways.org/reportcard�

http://www.isr.qut.edu.au/downloads/2007_jane_hodg_smcl_cox_ajes.pdf�

http://eprints.qut.edu.au/29968/�


http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/assessment/assessment-methods/aca/wide-bay-burnett.html�

http://wetlandinfo.ehp.qld.gov.au/wetlands/assessment/assessment-methods/aca/wide-bay-burnett.html�


Humphries P, Brown P, Douglas J, Pickworth A, Strongman R, Hall K and Serafini L (2008). Flow-related patterns in abundance and composition of the fish fauna of a degraded Australian lowland river. Freshwater Biology 53: 789–813.Available on the Internet at: http://csusap.csu.edu.au/~phumphri/Humphriesetal2008.pdf

Hutchison and Simpson (2002). Southern Stocks of Jungle Perch Kuhlia Rupestris in Need of Recovery. Australian Society for Fish Biology 2002 Annual Conference. Last accessed: 29/01/13 Available on the Internet at: http://www.asfb.org.au/pubs/2002/asfb_2002-30.htm.

Iredale ET and Whitley GP (1938). The fluvifaunulae of Australia. South Australian Naturalist 18: 64–8.

Jacka S, McKevit C and Alletson T (2010). Aerial mapping of two riparian vine weeds in Tweed Shire, New South Wales. Australasian Plant Conservation 18 (3): 15–16. Last accessed: 15/02/2013. Available on the Internet at: http://www.anbg.gov.au/anpc/apc/18-3_jacka.html

Johnson IC, Field EJ and Bruce NL (1982). Survey of the Mary River macrofauna: with comments on the likely effects of barrage construction. Queensland University, Department of Zoology, St Lucia.

Johnson DP (1996). State of the Rivers – Mary River and Major Tributaries. An ecological and physical assessment of the condition of streams in the Mary River Catchment. Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Brisbane. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available via the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection catalogue at: http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/library/

Jonsson B Waples RS and Friedland K (1999). Extinction considerations for the diadromous fishes. ICES Journal of Marine Science, 56: 405–409. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/405.abstract

JQC CRA/RFA SC [Joint Queensland/Commonwealth Comprehensive Regional Assessment / Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee] (1997). Systematic Vertebrate Fauna Survey Project Stage 1 - Vertebrate Fauna Survey in the SEQ Bioregion (EH 1.1.1 Part B). Queensland Government, Commonwealth of Australia (Forests Taskforce Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet).

JCQ RFA SC [Joint Commonwealth and Queensland Regional Forest Agreement Steering Committee] (1999). South-East Queensland Comprehensive Regional Assessment - Chapter 2 The South-East Queensland Region. Available on the Internet at: www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/48960/qld_se_cra4.pdf

Kind PK and Brooks SG (2003). Fish communities in the lower Burnett River Queensland, with reference to the Walla Weir and future water infrastructure development. Final Report. Prepared for the Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Brisbane.

King CJ (1948). The first fifty years of agriculture in New South Wales. Review of marketing and Agricultural Economics 16: 362–386. Sydney. Available on the Internet at: http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/9067/1/17020118.pdf

http://csusap.csu.edu.au/~phumphri/Humphriesetal2008.pdf�

http://www.asfb.org.au/pubs/2002/asfb_2002-30.htm�

http://www.anbg.gov.au/anpc/apc/australasian_plant_conservation.html�

http://www.anbg.gov.au/anpc/apc/18-3_jacka.html�

http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/library/�

http://icesjms.oxfordjournals.org/content/56/4/405.abstract�

http://www.daff.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0009/48960/qld_se_cra4.pdf�

http://ageconsearch.umn.edu/bitstream/9067/1/17020118.pdf�


Kingsford RT (2000). Review: Ecological impacts of dams, water diversions and river management on floodplain wetlands in Australia. Austral Ecology 25: 109–127. Available on the Internet at: http://swnrm.boab.info/sites/default/files/uploads/ihub/kingsford-rt-2000-ecological-impacts-dams-water-diversions-and-river.pdf.

Koehn J, Brumley A and Gehrke P (2000). Managing the Impacts of Carp. Bureau of Rural Sciences (Department of Agriculture, Fisheries and Forestry). Canberra. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.feral.org.au/managing-the-impacts-of-carp/

Kroon F, Joehnk F, Williams KJ and Dunlop M (2012). Queensland's biodiversity under climate change: freshwater aquatic ecosystems. CSIRO Climate adaptation flagship working paper No. 12D. Last accessed: 8/11/12. Available on the Internet at: www.csiro.au/resources/CAF-working-papers.html

Lake PS and Marchant R (1990). Australian upland streams: ecological degradation and possible restoration. Proceedings of the Ecological Society of Australia 16: 79–91.

Leopold L, Wolman M and Miller J (1964). Fluvial Processes in Geomorphology. Freeman and Company. San Francisco, USA.

Llewellyn LC (1983). The Distribution of Fish in New South Wales. Australian Society for Limnology, Special Publication No 7.

Lough JM (1991). Rainfall variations in Queensland Australia: 1891–1986. International Journal of Climatology. 11: 745–768.

Lough JM (1992). Variations in sea-surface temperatures off north-eastern Australia and associations with rainfall in Queensland: 1956-1987. International Journal of Climatology 12: 765–782.

Lovett S and Price P (2007). (Eds.) Principles for riparian lands management. Land and Water Australia. Canberra.

Lupton CJ and Heidenreich MJ (1999). A fisheries resource assessment of the estuarine reaches of the Burnett River in the Wide Bay - Burnett Region of Queensland. Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

LWA [Land and Water Australia] (2004). Managing Riparian Widths. River and Riparian Management Fact Sheet 13. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://lwa.gov.au/products/pf040748

McDonald CM (1978). Morphological and biochemical systematics of Australian freshwater and estuarine percichthyid fishes. Australian Journal of Marine and Freshwater Research 29: 667–698. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.publish.csiro.au/paper/MF9780667.htm

Miles NG(2007). Biology and ecology of diadromous fishes in south-eastern Australia. PhD thesis. University of Wollongong, School of Earth and environmental sciences. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/727/

http://swnrm.boab.info/sites/default/files/uploads/ihub/kingsford-rt-2000-ecological-impacts-dams-water-diversions-and-river.pdf�

http://swnrm.boab.info/sites/default/files/uploads/ihub/kingsford-rt-2000-ecological-impacts-dams-water-diversions-and-river.pdf�

http://www.feral.org.au/managing-the-impacts-of-carp/�

http://www.csiro.au/resources/CAF-working-papers.html�

http://lwa.gov.au/products/pf040748�


http://ro.uow.edu.au/theses/727/�


Morris SA, Pollard DA, Gehrke PC and Pogonoski JJ (2001). Threatened and Potentially Threatened Freshwater Fishes of Coastal New South Wales and the Murray-Darling Basin. Report to Fisheries Action Program and World Wide Fund for Nature. NSW Fisheries Final Report Series No. 33. Available on the Internet at: www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/137456/output-33.pdf

MRCCC [Mary River Catchment Coordinating Committee] (2001). Mary River and tributaries Rehabilitation Plan- Implementation Edition. Available on the Internet at: http://mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/Mary%20River%20&%20tributaries%20Rehabilitation%20Plan/Implementation%20Edition%202001.pdf.

MRCCC (2008). Riffle/pool/sandbank community of the Mary River (Queensland) floodplain - Threatened Ecological Community EPBC nomination. Available on the Internet at: http://mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/MRCCC%20Mary%20Threatened%20Ecological%20Community%20EPBC%20nomination%20Apr%2008%20(13%20mb).pdf

Norris RH, Prosser I, Young B, Liston P, Bauer N, Davies N, Dyer F, Linke S and Thoms M (2001).The assessment of river conditions (arc). An audit of the ecological condition of Australian rivers. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/catalog/mql:3015 and http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/downloads/mql:3015/PDF

Northern Rivers CMA [Catchment Management Authority] (2011). Richmond Catchment. Last accessed: 18/10/11. Available on the Internet at: http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/region_catchment_richmond.php

Northern Rivers CMA [Catchment Management Authority] (2012). Regional State of the Environment 2012 for the Northern Rivers CMA region of NSW. Last accessed: 05/02/13. Available on the Internet at: http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/regional-state-of-the-environment-2012-report.pdf and SOE Report Card – Clarence Valley Council http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/clarence-valley-soe-report-card-2012.pdf and SOE Report Card – Ballina Shire Council http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/ballina-shire-council-soe-report-card-2012.pdf

NSW DECC [New South Wales Department of Climate Change] (2006). Lowland Rainforest on Floodplain in the New South Wales North Coast Bioregion – profile. Last accessed: 13/12/11. Available on the Internet at: http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10497

NSW DECC (2009a). Hawkesbury-Nepean River Environmental Monitoring Program. New South Wales Department of Climate Change. Sydney. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/water/09112hnrempfintechrpt.pdf

NSW DECC (2009b). Draft Northern Rivers Regional Biodiversity Management Plan, National Recovery Plan for the Northern Rivers Region. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/northern-rivers.pdf and Appendix 18 at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/northern-rivers-appendix-18.pdf

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/137456/output-33.pdf�

http://mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/Mary%20River%20&%20tributaries%20Rehabilitation%20Plan/Implementation%20Edition%202001.pdf�

http://mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/Mary%20River%20&%20tributaries%20Rehabilitation%20Plan/Implementation%20Edition%202001.pdf�

http://mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/MRCCC%20Mary%20Threatened%20Ecological%20Community%20EPBC%20nomination%20Apr%2008%20(13%20mb).pdf�

http://mrccc.org.au/downloads/publications/MRCCC%20Mary%20Threatened%20Ecological%20Community%20EPBC%20nomination%20Apr%2008%20(13%20mb).pdf�

http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/catalog/mql:3015�

http://nrmonline.nrm.gov.au/downloads/mql:3015/PDF�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/region_catchment_richmond.php�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/regional-state-of-the-environment-2012-report.pdf�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/regional-state-of-the-environment-2012-report.pdf�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/clarence-valley-soe-report-card-2012.pdf�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/clarence-valley-soe-report-card-2012.pdf�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/ballina-shire-council-soe-report-card-2012.pdf�

http://www.northern.cma.nsw.gov.au/downloads/Project_Pages/regional-soe/ballina-shire-council-soe-report-card-2012.pdf�

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=10497�

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/water/09112hnrempfintechrpt.pdf�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/northern-rivers.pdf�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/northern-rivers.pdf�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/northern-rivers-appendix-18.pdf�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/recovery/pubs/northern-rivers-appendix-18.pdf�


NSW DECC (2010). Lowland Rainforest in the NSW North Coast and Sydney Basin Bioregions – profile. Last accessed: 13/12/11. Available on the Internet at: http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=20073

NSW DECCW [Department of Environment, Climate Change and Water] (2010). State of the Catchments 2010, Northern Rivers Region, Riverine ecosystems. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soc/stateofthecatchmentsreport.htm and http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/soc/northernrivers/10422NRIVERSriver.pdf

NSW DEEDI [Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation] (2011). Actions to restore and develop Jungle perch recreational fisheries. Lead Agency - Research in Progress. Last accessed: 06/02/13. Available on the Internet at: http://era.deedi.qld.gov.au/2235/

NSW DNR [New South Wales Department of Natural Resources] (1997). The occurrence of groundwater in south-east Queensland. Water facts. Rural Water Advisory Services. Available on the Internet at: www.lockyerwater.com/doc/download/DNR_Water_Facts_SEQld.pdf

NSW DNR (2006). Survey of tidal limits and mangrove limits in NSW estuaries 1996 to 2005. State of New South Wales. Available on the Internet at: www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/estuaries/20060118DNRSurveyTidalMangroveLimits.pdf

NSW DPI [Department of Primary Industries] (2006). Reducing the impact of road crossings on aquatic habitat in coastal waterways – Northern Rivers, NSW, Report to the New South Wales Environmental Trust. Available on the internet at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0008/186812/impact-of-road-crossingsnorthern-rivers.pdf

NSW DPI (2012). Feral Pig Biology. Web page. Last accessed: 15/02/13. Available on the internet at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/vertebrate-pests/pest-animals-in-nsw/feral-pig-biology

NSW DPI (2013). Improving fish habitats. Web page. Last accessed: 15/02/13. Available on the internet at: http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/rehabilitating/habitats

NSW Fisheries and the CRC for Freshwater Ecology (1997). Fish and Rivers in Stress: The NSW Rivers Survey (Eds. JH Harris and PC Gehrke). Last accessed: 15/02/13. Available on the Internet at: http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au/Publications.nsf/0/b91721ae5974c0e9ca256f19000f0620?OpenDocument

NSW Government (1992). The NSW Sand and Gravel Extraction Policy for Non-Tidal Rivers. A Component of the State Rivers and Estuaries Policy. Reprinted June 1996. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: https://www.shop.nsw.gov.au/pubdetails.jsp?publication=7934

NSW Government (2010). State of the catchments 2010 - Rivererine ecosystems - Northern Rivers region. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/soc/northernrivers/10422NRIVERSriver.pdf

http://www.threatenedspecies.environment.nsw.gov.au/tsprofile/profile.aspx?id=20073�

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/soc/stateofthecatchmentsreport.htm�


http://era.deedi.qld.gov.au/2235/�

http://www.lockyerwater.com/doc/download/DNR_Water_Facts_SEQld.pdf�

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/estuaries/20060118DNRSurveyTidalMangroveLimits.pdf�

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/resources/estuaries/20060118DNRSurveyTidalMangroveLimits.pdf�

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/vertebrate-pests/pest-animals-in-nsw/feral-pig-biology�

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/agriculture/pests-weeds/vertebrate-pests/pest-animals-in-nsw/feral-pig-biology�

http://www.dpi.nsw.gov.au/fisheries/habitat/rehabilitating/habitats�

http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au/Publications.nsf/0/b91721ae5974c0e9ca256f19000f0620?OpenDocument�




NSW OEH [New South Wales Office of Environment and Heritage] (2011). North Coast Bioregion. Last accessed: 17/01/12. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bioregions/nswnorthcoastbioregion.htm

Pollard DA (Ed.) (1990). Australian Society for Fish Biology Workshop: Introduced and translocated fishes and their ecological effects. Bureau of Rural Resources Proceedings No.8. Australian Government Publishing Service. Canberra.

Pollard DA, Llewellyn LC and Tilzey RDJ (1980). Management of freshwater fish and fisheries. In’ An ecologica1 basis for water resource management’ (Ed. W.D. Williams). 227–270. ANU press. Canberra.

Pollard DA and Wooden I (2002). Interim results of surveys in the Clarence and Richmond river systems: Supplement to eastern freshwater cod (Maccullochella ikei) recovery plan. New South Wales Fisheries. Nelson Bay.

Price P and Lovett S (Eds.) (1999a). Riparian Land Management Technical Guidelines, Volume One: Principles of Sound Management, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC). Canberra. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://lwa.gov.au/products/pr990322

Price P and Lovett S (Eds.) (1999b). Riparian Land Management Technical Guidelines, Volume Two: On-ground Management Tools and Techniques, Land and Water Resources Research and Development Corporation (LWRRDC) Canberra. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://lwa.gov.au/products/pr990323

Pusey BJ, Storey AW, Davies PM, and Edward DHD (1989). Spatial and temporal variation in fish communities in two south-western Australian river systems. Journal of the Royal Society of Western Australia 71: 69–75.

Pusey BJ, Burrows D, Arthington AH and Kennard M J (2006). Translocation and spread of piscivorous fishes in the Burdekin River, north-eastern Australia. Biological Invasions 8: 965–977.

Qld DEEDI [Department of Employment, Economic Development and Innovation] (2012). Paradise Dam Downstream Fishway Monitoring Program. Final V1.1 Report for comment. DEEDI Fisheries Queensland for Burnett Water Pty Ltd.

Qld DERM [Queensland Department of Environment and Resource Management] (2010). Mary River environmental values and water quality objectives Basin No. 138, including all tributaries of the Mary River.

Qld DERM (2011). Wetland Info: South-East Freshwater Biogeographic Province. Last accessed: 31/01/12. Available on the Internet at: http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/FBP/South-East.html and http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/FBP/South-East/Hydrology.html#base and http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/Background/Hydrology.html and http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/Methods.html

http://www.environment.nsw.gov.au/bioregions/nswnorthcoastbioregion.htm�



http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/FBP/South-East.html�

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/FBP/South-East.html�

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/FBP/South-East/Hydrology.html#base�

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/FBP/South-East/Hydrology.html#base�

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/Background/Hydrology.html�

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/Background/Hydrology.html�

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/Methods.html�

http://wetlandinfo.derm.qld.gov.au/wetlands/ScienceAndResearch/ConceptualModels/Riverine/Methods.html�


Qld DIP [Department of Infrastructure and Planning] (2009). Draft south east Queensland regional plan 2009 – 2031.Qld DIP. Brisbane.

Qld DNRM [Department of Natural Resources and Mines] (2012). Environmental flow assessment program summary report 2011-2012. Qld DNRM

Qld DPI [Department of Primary Industries] (1995). Sand and Gravel Resources of the Mary River: Information Paper. Department of Primary Industries, Water Resources, Brisbane.

Queensland Herbarium (2011). Regional Ecosystem Description Database (REDD). Version 6.0b - January 2011. Department of Environment and Resource Management: Brisbane.

QWI [Queensland Water Infrastructure Pty. Ltd.] (2007). Traveston Crossing Dam Environmental Impact Statement.

Roberts J, Young B and Marston F (2000). Estimating the water requirements for plants of floodplain wetlands: a guide. Occasional Paper 04/00. CSIRO Land & Water.

Rose P (2008). Issues Paper - Biodiversity in the Clarence Valley Local Government Area.

Rowland, S.J. (1993). Maccullochella ikei, an endangered species of freshwater cod (Pisces: Percicthyidae) from the Clarence River system, NSW and M. Peelii mariensis, a new subspecies from the Mary River system, QLD. Records of the Australian Museum 45: 121–145.

Rowland S J (2001). Record of the Banded Grunter Amniataba percoides (Teraponidae) from the Clarence River, New South Wales.pdf Available on the Internet.

Schiller CB, Bruce AM and Gehrke PC (1997). Chapter 4: Distribution and abundance of native fish in New South Wales rivers. In ‘Fish and Rivers in Stress: the NSW Rivers Survey” (Eds. JH Harris and PC Gehrke). Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://freshwater.canberra.edu.au/Publications.nsf/0/b91721ae5974c0e9ca256f19000f0620?OpenDocument

Simmonds I and Hope P (1997). Persistence characteristics of Australian rainfall anomalies. International Journal of Climatology 17: 597–613.

Simpson R and Jackson P (1996). The Mary River Cod Research and Recovery Plan Queensland Department of Primary Industries, Fisheries Group. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.gov.au/sprat and http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/mary-river-cod-research-and-recovery-plan

Southern Fishway Team (2000) An assessment of the fish communities of the Kolan river in regards to the proposed raising of Bucca Weir. Queensland Department of Primary Industries.

Speight JG (1990). Landform. In: 'Australian soil and land survey. Field handbook' Second edition (Eds.. RC McDonald, RF Isbell, JG Speight, J Walker, MS Hopkins). p 9–57. Inkata Press. Melbourne.

http://www.rzsnsw.org.au/Volumes%20of%20RZS%20papers/2001%20vol31%284%29/Rowland%20S%20J%20Record%20of%20the%20Banded%20Grunter%20Amniataba%20percoides%20%28Teraponidae%29%20from%20the%20Clarence%20River,%20New%20South%20Wales.pdf�

http://www.rzsnsw.org.au/Volumes%20of%20RZS%20papers/2001%20vol31%284%29/Rowland%20S%20J%20Record%20of%20the%20Banded%20Grunter%20Amniataba%20percoides%20%28Teraponidae%29%20from%20the%20Clarence%20River,%20New%20South%20Wales.pdf�




http://www.environment.gov.au/resource/mary-river-cod-research-and-recovery-plan�


Spencer B (1896). Report of the work of the horn expedition to central Australia, part 2. Zoology, p196–199. Melbourne. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.archive.org/stream/reportonworkhor02horngoog#page/n184/mode/2up

Stockwell B, Fennesy R, Berghuis A, Johnston B and Hutchison M (2008) Burnett Mary regional biopass strategy. Reconnecting the Dreamtime’s Rainbow Serpent. Queensland Department of Primary Industries and Fisheries. Brisbane.

Stockwell B, Hutchison M, Wedlock B, Ford E, Anderson T, Thomson C and Stephens K (2004). Freshwater Aquatic Biodiversity in the Burnett Mary Region Technical Paper (Version 6: Review) and Appendices I – VII.

Stuart and Berghuis (2002). Upstream passage of fish through a vertical slot fishway in an Australian subtropical river. Fisheries Management and Ecology 9: 111–122.

Taylor RN and Love M (2003). Fish passage evaluation at stream crossings. Part IX, California salmonid stream habitat restoration manual 3rd edition. California Department of fish and game. USA.

Townsend CR (1989). The patch dynamics concept of stream community ecology. Journal of the North American Benthological Society 8: 36–50. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available on the Internet at: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1467400

TSSC [Threatened Species Scientific Committee] (2010). Guidelines for Nominating and Assessing the Eligibility for Listing of Ecological Communities as Threatened according to the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act) and the EPBC Regulations 2000.

TSSC (2011). Advice to the Minister for Sustainability, Environment, Water, Population and Communities from the Threatened Species Scientific Committee on an Amendment to the List of Key Threatening Processes under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999 (EPBC Act). The introduction in Australian inland waters of native or non-native fish that are outside their natural geographic distribution.

Unmack PJ (2001). Biogeography of Australian freshwater fishes. Journal of Biogeography: 28 (9): 1053–1089.

Van Manen N (1999) State of the Rivers – Burnett River and Major Tributaries. An ecological and physical assessment of the condition of streams in the Burnett, Kolan and Burrum River catchments. Queensland Department of Natural Resources and Mines. Brisbane. Last accessed: 31/01/2014. Available via the Queensland Department of Environment and Heritage Protection catalogue at: http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/library/

Van Waegeningh HG (1981). A proposal for the dimensions of protection areas. The Science of the Total Environment 21: 397–403.

Wager R and Jackson P (1993). The action plan for Australian freshwater fishes. Last accessed: 15/02/2013. Available on the Internet at: http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/fish/index.html; http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/fish/4.html

http://www.archive.org/stream/reportonworkhor02horngoog#page/n184/mode/2up�


http://www.qld.gov.au/environment/library/�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/fish/index.html�

http://www.environment.gov.au/biodiversity/threatened/publications/action/fish/4.html�


Walker PH (1972). Seasonal And Stratigraphic Controls in Coastal Floodplain Soils. Australian Journal of Soil research 10: 127–42. Available on the Internet at: www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=SR9720127.pdf

Wide Bay Water Corporation and Burnett Mary Regional Group for Natural Resource Management (2008). Mary Water Quality Improvement Plan (WQIP). Last accessed: 19/02/2013. Available on the Internet at: http://www.bmrg.org.au/information.php/2/79

___________________________________________

http://www.publish.csiro.au/?act=view_file&file_id=SR9720127.pdf�

http://www.bmrg.org.au/information.php/2/79�

the long lowland rivers of south east queensland and north...

Documents